Thinking about my research

I was reading Jonassen and Rohror-Murphy's article on the design of constructivist learning environments, and the use of activity theory as a tool to support instructional design. Reading this for another purpose, the redesign of a case study exercise during residency. However, my mind kept jumping back to the way activity theory might figure in my research. A couple of thoughts.
1. The theoretical frame for the research is based on social constructionism, and recognizes the inter-related nature of individual and social in the learning process.
2. Activity is situated, and activity theory may be a lens for studying the complexity of human-environment interaction.
3. With this type of data it may then be possible to take any other activity system or program, analyze it using the activity theory lens, and then look at the intersection between learning and climate adaptation, finding the points of intersection, which become the spaces for integration.
4. need to re-read the article, focusing just on my research, and consider what the unit of analysis would be using an activity theory lens, and what this would yield. While a grounded theory approach has its appeal, using a particular model such at this might result in a more pragmatically oriented dissertation.

Returning to Residency

Back to school again, for my second and last doctoral residency. Looking forward to getting back into the flow of thinking about my research again, and learning more about learning and inquiry.

Understanding Radical Humanism...

Understanding radical humanism, or trying to anyway...

So how did I end up, selecting this paradigm, as the one I thought I needed to explore. The decision to focus on radical humanism came from the reading I did this summer for an initial lit review for my research. I had, from previous reading, understood that part of my research needed to be phenomenological study, understanding how people perceive and experience weather, climate and disaster. My sense is that if we are to be successful in realizing the benefits of climate science, we need to understand how indigenous, or local, communities and people experience and understand climate in the first place. From my reading this summer I came to realize I needed to sort out whether I was coming from an interpretist orientation, or a radical humanist one. Disaster risk reduction programs use participatory approaches, which in some instances include analysis of the broader context which influences hazard and risk; these approaches are similar to Frierian pedagogy, which in turn, has roots in radical humanism. While my first inclination was to focus on gaining in depth knowledge of interpretivist sociology, as this is where, as I understand it, phenomenology as a methodology draws from, I knew that at some point, I would need to sort out how I intended to deal with the broader contextual issues. And thus I am now delving into reading on radical humanism.

Reflections on writing

I'll begin with the last paragraph from my paper for Dr. Patterson's class, which was on the topic of doctoral socialization:

"The process of reviewing literature related to socialization has enabled me to further develop my understanding of the process and function of doctoral studies and I now have a better understanding of the formal and informal aspects of the journey that lie ahead. I’ve also now written an academic paper again; it has been twenty years since I last did this in my Master’s program. I recognize that my analysis of the literature needs to be strengthened, and know that this development is part of the process of socialization. As Baird (1992) notes “the central task facing entering graduate students is to master new ways of speaking, reading and writing that are the norm in the disciplinary and departmental community they are entering” (p.3). This paper is part of learning about that norm."

That paper took a couple of days to write, and brought me back to the requirements for academic writing, something I have been away from for a long time. The literature review in support of my research topic, on the other hand has taken a week, of reading, writing, reading more literature, more writing re-reading and and re-writing. The process has been both stimulating and frustrating, and for a few days caused me to question if I really wanted to focus on my topic related to disaster risk reduction and climate change. While I love learning new material, I've chosen a topic which does not directly build on my own field experience; this results in an additional learning curve about the topic itself, which I previously understood at a general level. I've been able to recognize the various levels of learning required to complete this assignment, and have stopped from time to time to reflect on my own learning process, frustrations and challenges. I've just this morning completed, I think, a decent draft of my paper, which hopefully needs only one more edit before submission. I've gained a much richer understanding of the historical roots and research related to my topic, and though I still have thoughts about whether it make sense to take on this topic, I also come away from this last week feeling more grounded in the need for, and approach to the topic I've chosen. The learning has been on many levels.

I bought a white board last week, and quickly filled it up in one afternoon mapping concepts as they emerged from my literature review. As a visual learner, and thinker, I've now decided that what I really need is a white board that covers my wall, and so getting that in place is one of my next tasks before classes start in the fall.

I've been away from reading and posting on the course sites this last week, and connecting with others in the class. Now that I've got this paper to a stage where I can focus on final edits, I hope to get my head up from my desk, and get reconnected with others online.

And now, off to work...and speaking of work, I came back to the office to find that small grants are being offered to support the exploration and adoption of new technologies in teaching, and so I now have potential funding to support the ideas that emerged during the recent course on campus. A nice surprise, and of course, I'll be submitting an grant application.

Here is an initial concept map that developed from my reading of the literature:

July 16th and 17th post class discussions

Rather than blogging, Belina, Lisa and I decided we wanted to engage in conversation with each other about Drs. Friesen and Jacobsen's presentation. And then on Friday, we invited a few more people to join the conversation about Dr. Lock's presentation. I've not had success with uploading either of the files containing these conversations, and so have provided links to other blogs where they have been posted.

Learning curves with blog technology...I can manage text, and finally learned how to upload an image in jpeg format, but have had no success with MP3/4 files and .mov files. I keep getting error messages...thankfully I can manage a link.

Thinking about the development of a body of knowledge

My first conversation with Dr. Hanan Yaniv, about a year ago, and his drawing on a white board during our discussion, gave me a way of thinking about how the body of knowledge in disaster management is developed; how practitioner and researcher's body of knowledge differ and intersect; what distinguishes first hand disaster experience as a form on knowledge; and whether disaster experience can be recreated, created, simulated to provide first hand opportunities for learning, without having to experience a real disaster. And to start to answer these questions I turned to the disaster management literature on these topics. I also sought to learn about how new technologies, and educational technologies specifically, were discussed in the literature, and how these discussions were linked to the development of a body of knowledge. My reading, thinking, and reflection on these questions results in pages and pages of notes and drawings, and eventually to the conceptual framework of my proposed research topic. Along the way, and as a result of my reading, I recognized that indigenous knowledge was part of the body of knowledge, and an important element that needed to be added a framework, and that was generally missing from the discussion in North American literature, but which was part of the literature on disaster management in an international context.

Today's presentation was a chance for me to hear Dr. Yaniv speak about his philosophical and theoretical orientations, and how that has influenced his work.... to be continued.

Concept Map - Doc Talk Week 2

Research topic and concept map
This research topic concept map has been revised based on my reflections on a) questions posed to me during the course; b) readings; c) presentations by guest professors; and d) a presentation by a doctoral student. Here is a summary the changes I've made to my topic, and the thinking which has influenced these changes:

1. I have changed the purpose of the study from "design and test" to "design, develop and evaluate". One of the influences to the change in wording came from my learning about the design based method in the presentation by Drs. Jacobson and Friesen, which led to my realization that research could also encompass an intentionally interventionist approach. Their presentation was eye-opening and motivational for me; the approach to research method as an intervention, rather than an observation of a phenomena, was key to my understanding of the possibilities of research. The second influence on the change in phrasing came from my earlier reflection and blogging on the concept of "improving performance", as it is explained in Educational Technology: A Definition with Commentary (Januszewski & Molenda, 2008). I saw connections between improving performance and the AECT domain of evaluation, and in linking these concepts to an interventionist research method, decided that the term evaluation should be added to the description of the purpose of the study. I realize this is still an initial frame for my topic, but it now feels more grounded.

2. Lynn Moorman's candidacy paper The metaphysics of here to there: the relationship between the known and unknown and her presentation caused me to reflect on my approach to thinking about indigenous knowledge, specifically the nature of climate, and how we understand and experience this. The disaster management literature would address and frame a related issue as 'perception of risk', which I connected back to Lynn's paper and her discussion on the known and unknown. Ever since Lynn gave her presentation, I've been pondering and exploring the concepts of known and unknown, and find those concepts as important and underlying threads which weave through the literature I am reading. Lynn's paper also connected with me on another level, tying back to my thinking about different forms of experience in disaster management, ways of knowing, and the implications for a field of practice.

3. Based on a question posted to my blog, from my general readings in the course, and class explorations of technology trends, I have changed the term 'video-mediated strategies' to 'educational technology'. It is important to consider how the benefits of high tech can yield benefit in low tech environments. Video is one tool that can be incorporated into the design of an intervention, and/or, may be a research tool, as explained and explored in Dr. Susan Chrichton's presentation. But video is only one option. My interest is in how visual media enhance communications, both in the communication of 'expert' knowledge, the representation of 'indigenous knowledge'.

4. While my initial concept map include two field of expert knowlege (disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation), and indigenous knowledge, the way I connected and illustrated expert and indigenous knowledge has changed. While I think I at one level understood the relationships as I have now presented them, there were at least two influences on my change in representation on my concept map. First, my reading (and continued re-reading) of the chapter on Improving Performance, in the course text, specifically the section describing the media and the message, and the discussion on learning from (referening Clark's studies) and learning with (referencing Kozma's studies) fead into my thinking about the relationship of forms of knowledge. Second, our group Wiki exercise, and my own work on the non-formal section, and the case study analysis specifically, really focused me on the concept of co-learning.

I know that as I now read more literature on my topic, I will bring these new perspectives to the literature and that this influence my lens, and critique. Great learning these last two weeks for me.

First literature review
I have written, over the course of the last week, a series of potential questions or topics for my initial literature review assignment for this course. I've been struggling with this. There is a vast amount of literature on the topic of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation. These are two distinct fields, and much of the literature speaks about the relationship and needed intersections between the fields. And then I am adding the layer of an educational technology lense. Where to start, and make this literature review a productive task? A 50,000 ft level, as the issues I am addressing are global, a 10,000 ft level, understanding a certain aspect of my topic, a 1,000 ft level, understanding an specific element in my topic.

I had a brief conversation with Dr. Jacobson the other day, and one thing she said was 'have you found one good article?'. I have lots of good articles, that is my challenge. And then I found a great article from 2008, Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment, and after skimming it, realized it was on the track I wanted to go, which is at the 50,000 ft level. This article will help to shape the scope of the rest of my reading for this literature review

In the search I found another great article, which also seemed worth reading, perhaps not for this literature review, but it opened up another aspect of study related to my topic. The article is entitled Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change.

Some of my literature review options are/were:
1. How is early warning climate information communicated? (1,000 ft level)
2. What are the research gaps related to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction as understood through an educational technology lens? (50,000 ft level)
3. What efforts are being made to incorporate climate change into disaster risk reduction approaches, and what are the educational technology considerations? (40,000 ft level)