Qualitative Conversations

SPEAKERSApril Jones, Venus Watson, Boden Robertson, Ryn Bornhoft Boden Robertson  00:00Hello everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations the podcast series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. My name is Boden Robertson and I'm a PhD candidate in educational research at the University of Alabama specializing in qualitative methodologies and will serve as the moderator for our episode. Our focus today will be the recent conference on culturally sustaining pedagogy to critique and reimagine teaching qualitative research that was hosted by the College of Education Department of Educational Studies, psychology research methodology, and counseling and funded through the Spencer Foundation. Drs. Stephanie Shelton and Kelly Guyotte at the University of Alabama received a grant for the conference. Put tons of planning and coordination into it and along with invaluable support of April Jones and Carlson Coogler, who are both graduate students here at the University of Alabama. The conference brought an array of scholars to examine culturally sustaining approaches teaching and conducting qualitative research. Our episodes guests today are graduate students in the educational research PhD program at the University of Alabama who are also specializing in qualitative methodologies, and who attended the conference and will and will focus on their experiences from the conference and their process of understanding culturally sustaining pedagogies and their impact. We're very happy to be participating in this today. And we'll start with introductions from our guests, April Jones, Venus Watkins, and Ryn Bornhoft, if you'd please introduce yourselves. April Jones  01:30Hi, everybody. I'm so glad to be here. My name is April Jones. I am a doctoral candidate in the program at the University of Alabama that Boden has just mentioned. My research interests centers, areas of child welfare and juvenile justice specifically surrounding issues of social work and social justice, social justice, along with the marginalized communities that engage with and intersect with those particular systems. Venus Watson  02:01Hi, my name is Venus Watson and I am a PhD candidate at the University of Alabama with a focus on qualitative methodologies. And my research interests include black girlhood, black womanhood, and identity. I'm super excited to be here with you guys today. Ryn Bornhoft  02:22Hello, my name is Renbourn haft I am excited to be here. This is my first time ever recording a podcast. So I am focusing on issues surrounding disability and educational access in informal education settings, such as museums sort of covering both K through 12 and adult to a certain extent since museums have mixed audiences. So I'm looking forward to all our discussions. And I'm a PhD student. Boden Robertson  03:01That's also that's also important, right. Well, thank you. Thank you guys. All for. Thank you all for joining us. So we'll start with, we'll start with the first question, which is, I guess kind of obvious. So in, in your opinion, what does culturally sustaining pedagogy mean? Venus Watson  03:21So in my opinion, culturally sustaining pedagogies, their teaching methods that do more than just accept or include a student's cultural backgrounds in the classroom. So they aim to support and keep those cultural practices and identities alive and growing. This approach understands that students come from diverse cultural backgrounds, and that these differences are valuable. And 

Hello everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. I am Jori Hall, a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago. I also serve as the chair of the Egon Guba Award for Outstanding Contributions to Qualitative Research for the Qualitative Research Special Interest Group. I am beyond excited today to be joined by Dr. Giovanni Dazzo who was the recipient of the 2023 QRSIG Outstanding Dissertation Award for his dissertation titled Restorative validity: Exploring how critical participatory inquiry can promote peace, justice and healing. Giovanni is an interdisciplinary researcher, and evaluator and assistant professor at the University of Georgia. His work is focused on critical theoretical approaches to research and evaluation methodologies. In particular, he is interested in exploring the intersections of validity and ethics within critical participatory forms of inquiry, and the ways in which research and social policies can better be informed by communities. His work has been featured in a multitude of peer reviewed journals, such as the International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Educational Action Research, Cultural Studies ⇔ Critical Methodologies, and Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Giovanni is also the co-author of the recently published textbook by Sage called Critical Participatory Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Guide. Giovanni, it is a pleasure to have you with us today.Thank you, Jori. It's a pleasure to be here. You make me sound so good.Well, it's easy based on all the fabulous things you've done. Are you ready to get started? Giovanni?Yeah, let's get started.Great. So I was thinking that our audience would greatly appreciate learning more about your dissertation work. Can you just talk a little bit about your dissertation, maybe about its scope?Yeah, so the dissertation really focused on a long term critical participatory action research project in Guatemala. And I partnered with an organization that conducts forensic anthropology. It's the forensic anthropology foundation of Guatemala. So essentially, in their day to day, they investigate possible made mass grave sites that resulted from the country's 36 year armed conflict, which happened from 1960 to 1996. And then they work closely with communities who witnessed and experienced those atrocities to document the stories of those who are forcibly disappeared by the government. And they then extract DNA from living family members exhumed human remains from mass grave sites, and then attempt to match the DNA so they can identify those who were disappeared. So I worked alongside the forensic anthropology foundation of Guatemala or FAFG. And Kaqchikel speaking my community to see how we could all together as a research collective, explore how the research process could be made more restorative.And really, if you start to think about it, the work of FAFG is literally extractive to communities. They're pulling DNA from swamps, they're digging into the earth, and they're hoping to produce a match. Unfortunately, the success rate at the moment is just 14%. Because these human remains have been in the ground anywhere between 28 to 64 years.And those who witnessed the atrocities happen.They continue to pass away as time goes by. So we really sought to form the basis for this conceptual methodological framework called restorative validity. Truthfully, I stopped calling it a framework, because journal reviewers kept asking, is it a theoretical framework, a conceptual framework, a methodological framework so I started calling it what it is, and it's an agenda. It's a call to action. And we really wanted to explore and understand the factors that aid or impede

100:00:03.980 --> 00:00:12.030Katrina Struloeff: We really appreciate having all of you here today to discuss alternative research roles. Some traditional and some non traditional spaces that we think about 200:00:12.680 --> 00:00:18.760Katrina Struloeff: and we're very grateful to have our 3 panelists Dr. Pharaoh, Dr. Sanchez and Dr. Pianan. 300:00:18.820 --> 00:00:30.150Katrina Struloeff: and just to give you a little bit of background on the qualitative research sig of Ara we are established in 1,983. And we provide a space for discussing Floss. 400:00:30.350 --> 00:00:34.440Katrina Struloeff: the ethical, mythological, and philosophical elements of qualitative research. 500:00:34.470 --> 00:00:40.439Katrina Struloeff: and we really are looking to ensure the legitimization of nontraditional forms of research 600:00:40.460 --> 00:00:51.169Katrina Struloeff: within academia and beyond and we're really excited to provide this resource for grad students, so we can have conversations around different avenues than we traditionally talk about in academia. 700:00:51.420 --> 00:00:59.140Katrina Struloeff: so today we're gonna allow each of our panelists to kind of tell us their stories and their pathways. in the nature of qualitative research. 800:00:59.350 --> 00:01:04.070Katrina Struloeff: And then from there we'll open it up for a. Q. A. From participants in the audience. 900:01:04.160 --> 00:01:11.770Katrina Struloeff: If you have questions that are budding, feel free to put them in the chat as we go, and we will be sure to collect those at the right time. 1000:01:11.900 --> 00:01:19.350Katrina Struloeff: And with that I want to kick it off because I know where a few minutes already into our space and hand it over to Dr. Fernaro 1100:01:19.420 --> 00:01:23.559Katrina Struloeff: to discuss her role as a non Academic academic Call 1200:01:23.630 --> 00:01:25.910Katrina Struloeff: Job at the School District of Philadelphia. 1300:01:27.170 --> 00:01:36.449Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): Thanks, Katrina. Hi, Everyone I'm. I'm Liz Fernaro and I currently work as a research specialist in the office of research and Evaluation. 1400:01:36.480 --> 00:01:43.540Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): I'm: so I'm just gonna give a little bit about my background, and how I ended up in this role. 1500:01:43.850 --> 00:01:51.479Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): And I think as we continue this app this morning. there'll be a space for questions. so just feel free to 1600:01:51.570 --> 00:01:55.910Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): Ask for any clarification or any more information on anything I share. 1700:01:56.190 --> 00:02:01.969Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): so I went to Temple University, which is in Philadelphia, and I studied urban education. 1800:02:02.270 --> 00:02:08.999Elisabeth G. Fornaro (Lis) (she/her): My dissertation was qualitative. I. It was loosely based on ethnographic methods. 

SPEAKERSTanja Burkhard, Shena Sanchez Tanja Burkhard  00:16Okay, thank you so much for inviting us to the qualitative conversations podcast. My name is Tanja Burkhard, and I'm really happy to be here with Shena Sanchez to talk about CRT and qualitative research. We'll start by maybe me introducing myself briefly and then I will give it over to Shena. My name is Tanya Burkhard. And I am an assistant professor at Washington State University Vancouver. And I've been a member of the QR SIG for a while and I'm very excited to be on this podcast today. Shena? Shena Sanchez  00:59Hi, I'm Shena Sanchez. I'm an assistant professor at the University of Alabama and qualitative research. And I'm happy to be here and have this conversation. Tanja Burkhard  01:13Okay, and so I know just a little bit about your work from a while ago, and I would love to hear more about what you're currently doing. But before we do that, could you speak a little bit about yourself and your work and how you came to CRT as a methodological or theoretical framework, just kind of your journey to where you are in employing critical race theory? Shena Sanchez  01:37Yeah, um, so my work is my work centers, student voice and identity, specifically, girls of color from poor and working class backgrounds, immigrant backgrounds, I also look at educators well being, and my hope is that, you know, we can understand students better into an identity better and as well as our educators to form just better school communities. Right? It's because so much of, you know, the school is about relationship and so. So just finding better ways to care for people who are in schools, students and educators alike. And I came to critical race theory. So it's kind of like a long story. But to make it short, many, many years ago, I was in a master's program at Vanderbilt. And that's when I really just started kind of exploring, just from like an academic standpoint, like inequalities and injustices and that sort of thing. And I was just very dissatisfied with the course offerings, because I didn't really feel like there were courses that helped us understand sort of the the power structures and the hierarchies that existed. So I don't know what I was doing. But I found this class in the course catalog. And it wasn't called critical race theory, it was called something else. And it was taught in the higher ed, I think department, and I took it and that's where I first was introduced to CRT. And I think like many people who come to the theory after just like years of just experience and knowledge that something is up, right, and that we like, for me, I didn't have the words to describe it. And I didn't have that theoretical grounding, and just reading their spells work. Like just from the get go, I was like, this makes so much sense. Like this is it and then bringing in, you know, Kimberly Crenshaw, Richard Delgado, just like just going through all of the, you know, founders of critical race theory. It just, to me, it really opened my eyes gave me the language gave me sort of the framework for understanding, not just my experiences, but how I was observing, you know, the world and society. So that's really where it started. And honestly, that's what made me want to go and get a PhD. That's what really prompted me to want to learn more. And so I looked for a program that really, you know, emphasize critical theory and had scholars and faculty that, you know, we're experts in critical race theory, and that's how I ended up at UCLA. And from there, I just kind of took the, you know, the years in grad school where you have ample time to, to just explore and be curious and learn. A

 2023 QRSIG Program Preview podcastThu, Mar 30, 2023 8:12PM • 20:30SUMMARY KEYWORDSsig, sessions, qr, conference, qualitative research, opportunities, year, program, virtual, submission, jessica, members, methodologies, education, annual meeting, reception, wonderful, community, literacy, reviewersSPEAKERSRenuka de Silva, Alexandra Panos, Jessica Van Cleave Jessica Van Cleave  00:04Welcome to Qualitative Conversations, the podcast of the qualitative research special interest group of AERA. I'm Jessica Van Cleave, the chair of the QR SIG, and I'm happy to be joined today by Alex Panos and Renuka de Silva, our program co-chairs. In this episode, we preview the QR SIG program for the 2023 AERA Annual Meeting, discuss what members can expect from the place-based and virtual components of the conference, and highlight opportunities to connect for QR SIG graduate students and members.   Alexandra Panos is an Assistant Professor of literacy studies and affiliate faculty in measurement and research in the College of Education at the University of South Florida. She earned her doctorate in literacy, language and culture education, with a minor in inquiry methodology at Indiana University Bloomington in 2018. Alex takes a transdisciplinary stance in her work as a critical qualitative methodologist and grounds her theoretical, methodological and empirical work in her substantive field of literacy studies. She has published numerous articles and book chapters that focus on qualitative methodologies and literacy studies. She centers her scholarship on the reality that, to quote Octavia Butler, there is no end to what a living world demands of you. For her, this means prioritizing community engaged and post critical activities that center spatial and ecological justice. Alex is completing her three year term as program co chair at the conclusion of the 2023 Annual Meeting.  Renuka de Silva is an Assistant professor of teaching and leadership in the College of Education and Human Development at the University of North Dakota. She is the director of the Indigenous teacher education program. As a qualitative researcher she examines issues and trends in Indigenous education, diversity, equity, inclusion, and cultural contexts of higher education. Her primary research focuses on indigenous epistemology and the importance of storytelling in native and indigenous cultures. Renuka is an artist and an activist. Her activism centers on creating pathways for scholars from underserved communities to engage in research that is non Eurocentric. As an artist, Renuka's research examines relationships between artists and their works, connecting activism and transnationalism. She hopes to promote and support scholarly work, where embodied experiences are [k]new knowledge that continues to shape people and create identities that are meaningful to themselves. From this space, scholars will interrogate imposed identities with prefabricated borders and limitations placed on everything that is self and the physical body. We are fortunate to have Renuka remain as program co chair for two more years. Thank you both for joining me today for our 2023 AERA Annual Meeting program preview podcast. As we all know, the Annual Meeting can be an overwhelming experience, especially if you're attending for the first time. Hopefully, this episode will orient and help our listeners to understand the conference as well as the QR SIG offerings. So let's start by talking a little bit about the format of the conference this year. The Annual Meeting will take place in two parts with the place based meeting in Chicago, April 13th through 16th, and the virtual component of the meeting May 4th through 5th. How has that impacted the program and what can attendees expect? Alexandra Panos  03:58Thanks, Jessica. It's wonderful to be here today. So the place-based and virtual components are really similar to normal conference experiences. We have 13 sessions in the place based conference taking place in Chicago, and four sessions in the virtual component in May. We're really excited that we received powerful proposals for both parts of the conference. And we wanted to make sure that people realized that if you register for the place based conference, you automatically are able to join virtually in May. And of course we encourage all folks to check out the program this year and reach out to the wonderful presenters about their work, even if they're not able to attend one or both formats of the conference. We tried to make the program really visible in our newsletter that will be coming out in recent weeks and right before the place based conference, and encourage synergies and connectivities over time and space in these place based and virtual components. Jessica Van Cleave  04:57Thank you so much. That's really helpful to conceptualize the two different spaces where we can engage this year. So can you offer us an overview of the program? For example, how many sessions does the QR SIG offer? And what kinds of topics can attendees expect to find? Renuka de Silva  05:55Thank you, Jessica. I would love to answer that question. As we said, we have a total of 17 sessions this year across the place based and virtual conference opportunities. We're excited about all of our sessions. One session that is particularly exciting is one we are co sponsoring with our wonderful colleagues in Division G, social contexts of education, on Monday at 4:10, titled, Educational Research at the Intersection of Contemporary Black Studies and Posthumanism: Risk, Possibilities, and Purpose. We hope that this session brings our two units closer together to consider the important ideas the presenters are sharing. We are grateful for the broad range of expertise being shared this year with topics addressing innovative applied methods, critical engagement with qualitative methodologies, and creative and thoughtful sessions designed to bring many ideas together from many perspectives, to other place based sessions that are bringing big groups of folks together, to think broadly are Writing and Articulation of Qualitative Research on Monday at 2:50pm and Postfoundational Qualitative Inquiry on Tuesday at 9:50am. And we want to give a shout out to our virtual symposium Interrogating Consequential Education Research in Pursuit of Truth in Living Theory, which will be Thursday, May 4, at 8am CST. Jessica Van Cleave  06:09Wonderful! It sounds like there really are some exciting offerings this year. I'm looking forward to this. So there is a long process that gets us to this place of building such an interesting and exciting program. So can you talk to us a little bit about what is the process for reviewing and accepting submissions and what kinds of things are taken into account in that process? Alexandra Panos  09:05Definitely. It's the biggest part of our work as program co chairs and one that we believe is exceptionally important and something we take very seriously. So we would like to start by saying that we rely heavily on the expertise of our volunteers who share valuable insights about each submission. This is not something we do in isolation. We rely on the volunteers in our in our community here in the QR SIG. To support this process. We together as program co chairs assign each submission for reviewers with one of those being a graduate student who's getting experience in this process and practice. While supported by outside folks, as a team, then we individually and collaboratively consider each submission and its reviews to make a final decision of acceptance or rejection. And one thing I'd like to point out is that when we initially match reviewers with a submission, we prioritize matching reviewers with submissions in their areas of expertise, in particular, for work that's being proposed that has been historically in prejudice presently marginalized in the academy. So for folks who submit proposals that might have keywords or topics related to critical race theory, queer theory, feminist methodologies, or disability studies, just to name a few, certainly others, we do our absolute best to ensure, in particular for those that they have reviewers with background in those areas. We also want to note that while we certainly love having submissions that address the conference theme, we welcome all submissions, addressing qualitative methodologies, and that that's the center point. For our review process, centering methodology, qualitative methodologies, the most important part of a proposal and what we're looking for, in the QR SIG. But as a whole, the review process, we tried to make it as holistic as possible, informed by the experts that make up this wonderful community. Jessica Van Cleave  11:09It's still in the context of AERA, which is enormous. So how can members locate the sessions that they are interested in from the QR SIG for the place based meeting.  Renuka de Silva  11:42Definitely check out the online program through AERA. There's a great feature that you can map out your own schedule by favoriting, or liking, your sessions. And you can search by unit to find the session for your SIG. Additionally, our newsletter will be out by the conference and includes an overview of the program. So that should be helpful.  Jessica Van Cleave  12:07Fantastic. Yeah, there are some great tools out there and, and do look out for the information coming out via the listserv as we get closer to the play space annual conference. So how can members access the virtual sessions. Alexandra Panos  12:24So very similarly, you'll get login information from AERA for accessing the virtual platform, and then you'll also be able to access the sessions through AERA web page, but look for info from AERA directly, not just from us for accessing that virtual space. But in terms of our program, you can see the sessions in the program the same way you would for the placed based session. So the online program this year, wh

SPEAKERSAlecia Jackson, Lisa Mazzei, Jessica Van Cleave Jessica Van CleaveHello and welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast hosted by the qualitative research SIG of AERA, the American Educational Research Association. I'm Jessica Van Cleave, Chair of the Qualitative Research SIG and Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at Gardner Webb University. The Qualitative Conversations podcast doesn't have a regular host. Instead, each episode is organized by our podcast committee. Today I have the pleasure of hosting this episode, in which I interviewed Dr. Lisa Mazzei and Dr. Alecia Jackson about their recently published second edition of Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research. Lisa Mazzei is Professor of Education Studies and Alumni Faculty Professor of Education at the University of Oregon, where she is also affiliated faculty in the department of philosophy. She is a methodological innovator in post human inquiry, and her work is widely read and cited across disciplines such as education, psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, business and medicine. She is the author of Inhabited Silence in Qualitative Research from 2007. Alecia Jackson is Professor of Educational Research at Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, where she is also affiliated faculty in the Gender, Women's and Sexuality Studies program. Dr. Jackson's research interests bring feminist post structural and post human theories of power, knowledge, language, materiality and subjectivity to bear on a range of overlapping topics deconstructions of voice and method conceptual analyses of resistance freedom and agency in girls and women's lives and qualitative analysis and the posts. Her work seeks to animate philosophical frameworks in the production of the new and her current projects are focused on the ontological turn qualitative inquiry and thought. Together they are co-authors of Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research, first and second editions, and coeditors of Voice in Qualitative Inquiry from 2009. Their forthcoming edited book, Postfoundational Approaches to Qualitative Inquiry, will be published in 2023. Lisa and Alecia, thank you so much for joining us on this episode of Qualitative Conversations. Lisa MazzeiDelighted to be here. Thanks for inviting us. Alecia JacksonThank you for the invitation. Jessica Van CleaveAbsolutely. So some of our listeners may not be familiar with your work, or maybe new to your work. So would you be willing to tell us a little bit about yourselves, how you came to write together, and how you came to write Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research? Lisa MazzeiWell, Alecia and I say that we share an academic genealogy. We first met at AERA in 2005, I think I was presenting a paper on some of my voice work. Alecia came to attend the session. And she came and introduced herself at the end of the session. And I had just finished reading an article that she had written about subjectivity with new teachers. And so I was so excited to meet her and I had just been reading her work. And so we sat out in the hallway for about an hour. And we're talking about projects. And we said that we should propose a session for AERA the following year on voice because we were both looking at voice and challenging conventional understandings. And so that was right before I was moving to England, I moved to England in 2006, was attending the British Education Research Association Conference, started chatting with a book editor. And like a good editor, he always says, What's your current project? And so I told him about this idea that Alecia and I had for a session and he said, that sounds fabulous. Can you get a book proposal to me in a month? So I'm at this conference, emailing this woman that I've met in person once saying, can we put a book together, a book proposal, and that was the proposal we wrote for voice and qualitative inquiry. And the reviews were very positive for the book. But people who read the proposal didn't think that we could secure some of the authors that we had said we would put that would contribute. And they didn't know that I had studied with Patti Lather at Ohio State University, Alecia had studied with Bettie St. Pierre at the University of Georgia, and through these feminist networks, we had connections with some scholars who were doing some very interesting work. So that was the that was the beginning of our long and fruitful partnership. Alecia JacksonYeah, when we were working on the voice book, I traveled to Manchester. And so we had some writing time together. So one thing I do want to say is that Lisa and I have, ever since the collaboration began, we've never we've never lived in the same time zone. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's something that, you know, is really unique to the way that we've made things work. But we went to Manchester, we worked on the voice book, and then you came here, and we were working on Thinking with Theory. So we've had a couple of times that we've worked together, but in you know, Lisa has explained kind of the origin story. And then how Thinking with Theory came about is that after the voice book, we got really interested in we both were doing separately, we both were working on philosophically informed inquiry. And it didn't have that name at the time. Nobody was calling it that. Nobody was you know, calling it thinking with theory. It didn't have a name. And but it's what we were doing. And we started because we're reading each other's work and through the voice book, we realized is that, you know, what, what would it be like to, you know, to write something together, that was an alternative to, quote, data analysis. We were both talking about how to teach this way of doing this kind of analytic work and conceptual work. And there were lots of journal articles that people doing this kind of analytic thinking. But there wasn't anything that was out there cohesive, that we could use me, really to us in our teaching, that was kind of the impetus. So we were at the Congress. And we were out to dinner with Philip Mudd, who was our editor for the voice book. And we pitched this idea of taking, you know, one data set, and we will talk about how we don't really use that language anymore in a moment. But we talked to him about how to maybe conceptualize a book where we had one set of data that we looked at, that we analyzed across different theories. And he really loved it. And at that dinner, you know, he said, Yeah, let's put this together and see, see what it's like. Jessica Van CleaveThank you so much. It's really fantastic to sort of trace that process, obviously, briefly from that first meeting, until the beginnings of thinking with theory. So as you began the process of writing, thinking with theory and moving through to publication, what were your hopes for the book at the time? Lisa MazzeiI think I don't know, I don't know what our hopes were, I think our hopes were that it would be I mean, we've talked, we talked about our work when we started envisioning a new project as what kind of intervention do we want to make? And I remember extending what Alecia was saying, I remember being at the Congress, and we started talking about wanting something for our teaching and going to the book exhibit and looking at what was what was presented as analysis. And it was all about coding. And so our I think, you know, our initial hope was, well, this, this isn't what this is not representative of the kind of work that we do. This isn't how we teach our students. And so as Alecia said, We wanted something for our own teaching. And maybe I guess the hope was that it would be picked up by others and be useful to them. So Alecia Jacksonyes, I think it was a matter of, of what Lisa said, the intervention, I think, is a really good word. We, as I mentioned, what we did there wasn't a name for what we were doing. And we said, we wanted that we you know, Bettie St. Pierre always says write something that people can cite. And so that was something that, you know, she's always said to, and you've probably heard it too, Jessica, write something that people can cite. And, and, and put something out in the world that people can, you know, can use, and I really have a big part of part of the impetus for both of us, I think was to give this alternative to the field and name it in some way and have it so that, you know, it was it would become something that was recognizable that people could use, and really to take the field into that direction. I think that we, you know, back in the early 2010 to 12 qualitative research was shifting. It was shifting away from, you know, interpretive work and even critical work. And it was just time, it was time to bring it all together and give it a name and give it a place. And there was just so much enthusiasm right away because I think people were really didn't feel like coding was really analysis. So, you know, we had already done some work on that talking, writing about pieces, we're writing about how coding is not analysis and, and I thought this was just a way to give it a place in in the in the in the field Jessica Van CleaveWell, I mean, it's fascinating because as you said, Yes and that advice from Bettie it's definitely something that that I think all of us who have ever worked with her have heard, and it's so true. since y'all have published the first edition of Thinking with Theory, there's been an explosion of all of the you know, the methodologies without methodology, and concept as method and anti-methodology. You know, this sort of thing that you said there was a hunger for at the time. I mean, I think there's no better evidence than how much has proliferated since then. So in the years since its initial publication, Thinking with Theory has become a staple in qualitative inquiry. People are citing it not only in dissertations, but in articles across

SUMMARY KEYWORDSukraine, war, people, ukrainian, asu, research, students, education, happening, invasion, qualitative research, february, questions, crimea, russia, universities, fled, podcast, family, momentSPEAKERSTim, MariiaTim  00:15Hello and welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast hosted by the qualitative research SIG through AERA, the American Education Research Association. I am Tim wells, a postdoctoral research scholar at Arizona State University and guest host for this episode of the podcast. The qualitative conversations podcast doesn't have a regular host. Instead, each episode is organized by our podcast committee. Normally, my role resides in the background coordinating episodes and editing audio, but today I'm behind the mic. In conversation with Mariia Vitrukh. Mariia is a doctoral candidate in the Education Policy and Evaluation Program at Arizona State University. She serves on the QR sig's graduate student committee. In the fall of 2021, Mariia had been in conversation with myself about an episode she had hoped to record for the podcast. That podcast episode was never recorded. This is because only a few months later, on February 24 of 2022, Russia made a full scale invasion into Ukraine taking over 20% of the territory of Ukraine. Over the past few months. Maria is Ukrainian, writing her dissertation on learning experiences of Ukrainian students who moved from war areas in Ukraine and continue education in the context of forced migration. For the past year, she had been living in Ukraine, she left only a month before the invasion to teach courses at ASU and finish her dissertation proposal. The country she left has changed forever. But this hasn't stopped her from returning. I don't think that's yet research to complete. But all of our family remains in Ukraine. So instead of the original podcast that we planned in the fall of 2021, I invited Mariia to the podcast to share her experience of researching and being a doctoral student, in candidate and in times of war. Mariia, I can't thank you enough for your willingness to be on this program. Perhaps we could start with you sharing a bit more about your background for the listeners, what brought you to ASU's doctoral program. And what were you doing beforehand?Mariia  02:41Tim, thank you so much for the invitation. I really appreciate the opportunity not only to share my experience as a student, but also to talk about the ones in Ukraine.Tim  02:53So what brought you to ASU doctoral program.Mariia  02:57So, after I did my second master's degree at the University of Cambridge, in psychology and education road, I went back to Ukraine and storage, or co founded an NGO Ukrainian Educational Research Association. We did a couple of projects on education in Ukraine. And as a member of the organization I applied for grant was the US State Department. And I collaborated with displaced universities in Ukraine. And those are the universities that moved from Eastern world areas of the country. I worked with them for about three years on the project, doing workshops, and preparing conferences, interviewing people. And I think this collaboration kind of pushed me to think what can I do more to speak about the stories and share the stories of those people, and especially students, and how to say that I was really impressed with what they shared with me. And I think inspired by their example, even though their stories were not the easy ones. And this kind of inspire me to look for PhD programs. So I applied to ASU because it offered an interdisciplinary approach and had a variety of methods to look into the ongoing problems. So I thought that that's a place that where I can find a way to explore not an easy topic of war and how to research war, especially education in the context of war.Tim  04:35Yeah, thanks. That's just a little bit of background that I think might help orient the listeners to this episode and kind of your own deep knowledge and experience in Ukraine and in how this connects maybe to your own research and really builds off some of that background. So perhaps we could start with you telling us what are you doing in February of this year when the war ramped up?Mariia  05:05So I've just finished my perspectives de France. And I was planning to go back to Ukraine in March, but then to do my data collection, but then all the flights have been canceled due to the full scale invasion. Yeah, so I think that was the moment where I had to make quiet, hard decisions first, do I continue with my dissertation? Then if I do, then how do I continue? And there were a lot of personal issues as well as research questions, ethical considerations. Yeah, so had to resolve a lot of those factors.Tim  05:54I can actually remember sitting down with you early in the winter of 2022. Before the, the the invasion, and we had a conversation. And I think, some, I guess, what struck me and what I still remember about that, as you were situating, lots of the events that were kind of unfolding because this was a time when Russia had started to militarize the border, and they kind of brought this big presence of military forces right around the border. And I was just kind of asking you about this. And what you did really nicely is situate this historically, you provided some context and things. And of course, this isn't a History podcast, but maybe you can give some background about the background and history of the war. And maybe share a little bit about what happened in 2014, and how that might connect in some ways to 2020.Mariia  06:53So although there is a very common discourse, saying that the vast and by West people usually refer to the United States and NATO, saying that they put too much pressure on Russian presidents, and it caused a triggered the war. But I think it the tension began much earlier between Ukraine and Russia back in 2010, when victory and a college, very pro Russian president came to power in 2016 Ukrainian government's decision to suspend the signing of an Association Agreement with the European Union, and choosing closer ties to Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union sparked progress among the Ukrainian people. The scope of progress widened, with calls for the resignation of President victory on a college and the garment. The protests later Friday expanded into Ramadan and the Revolution of Dignity. A year later in 2014, protesters eventually occupied a government buildings in many regions of Ukraine. The uprising climaxed on 18th 20th of February 2014 and fierce fighting and cave between Milan activists and pleas resulted in deaths of almost 100 protesters and 13 police officers present in college and other government ministers fled the country to Russia. And just a week later, the so called little green man, as they were famously named in media appeared in Crimea in unmarked green army uniforms, carrying modern Russian military weapons and equipment. They took over control of strategic positions in Crimea and set Russian flags. Later in April 2014. Large parts of the Knights can Luhansk regions were seized by pro Russian terrorists backed by a Russian military since the start of the war in Ukraine in 2014. With the annexation of Crimea and invasion into Donbass, which are Donetsk and Luhansk region by Russia, Ukraine has become one of the countries with the highest number of internally displaced people worldwide. And these numbers can be compared to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. And by the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian ministry for social policy had already registered close to 2 million internally displaced people, and an estimated 1 million people have fled from war zone to the Russian Federation. In terms of education, from the scarce resources available, it is known that at the beginning of the conflict about back in 2014, about 700 educational institutions suffered both higher education and school level education at the higher level education about 700,000 students and teachers for more More than three and a half 1000 educational institutions experienced psychological difficulties due to military conflict in obtaining education. And students consider about 30% of those affected by war. After the 24th of February 2022, after the full scale invasion of Russia into Ukraine, over 1000, educational institutions have suffered bombing and shelling, and about 100 of them have been destroyed completely. And these numbers are continuously increasing. almost 10 million Ukrainian refugees have fled Ukraine since this escalation. And another 7 million more have been displaced internally within Ukraine, and over 12 million have been affected in the areas hardest hit by the war. And also how to remember that throughout over 7.5 million children that now are considered Children of War, and not to mention that the humanitarian needs are constantly increasing.Tim  11:10Yeah, thanks. So what's really clear, I think in talking with you, around this is that these events are part of a much larger, longer history that extends beyond February of this year in in dates much prior to that. But maybe you can tell us, if you're open to sharing a little bit about how you've experienced the changes of the war, the escalation within since this last year, and especially maybe how you've experienced this as a doc student doing research and qualitative research.Mariia  11:52Um, I think I made quite a few interesting discoveries for me both as a researcher and a human being and Ukrainian citizen, is that it's a very non translatable experience. So you can't really explain this to someone who hasn't been through similar events. Also, the news don't really reflect what is happening day by day process. After the full invasion, I had to make a decision on whether I continue with my dissertation, because the first instinct was just to pack my luggage and go back to Ukraine. And I wanted to help in some way I just didn't know how to help. I was waking up

In this episode, James Salvo interview Jessica Lester on digital tools and technology in qualitative research. See the following link for the transcript of this interview: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTH5sN93LYnhIsNCI1Lvjm938OxVLyKoqoQlTClDNNbWklNd1rY791re9jTJy8lad7mMVM1fLRlSPUf/pub

In this episode, James Salvo interviews Kakali Bhattacharya, editor of the Departures in Critical Qualitative Journal. The follow is a link to the transcript of the recording. https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRE14XdXBlCkELsYv-aktchCLq5GNtwUVQKvkwzyK6v8DoHqB40wKUZu4r69mPsxEMhHZGMBM6T0XYj/pub

In this Episode, guest hosts Kelly Guyotte and Seth McCall interview Candace Kuby and Becky Christ about their work on speculative qualitative inquiry and pedagogy. A transcript of the episode can be found at the following link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vT3GPrMhAq3CEwVBq8RWbDijLun33mlqdbPamsjAdKDPG8w0Q1J_n4nkhfgELfVCRrunmZhAJzY1WP6/pub

In this episode, mentor, Dr. Kelly Guyotte, and, mentee, Carlson Coogler, discuss their experiences of mentorship. They specifically address mentorship within the Qualitative Research SIG. The episode begins with Carlson interviewing Kelly, but flips halfway through as Kelly begins to interview Carlson. Boden Robertson serves as the guest host, introducing the conversation. The transcript follows. ---Boden Robertson  0:11  Hello everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. I'm Boden Robertson, the guest host for this episode on mentorship. And I'm very excited today to be joined by Dr. Kelly Guyotte and Carlson Coogler that have been gracious enough to lend their time and support to our QR SIG podcast episode. We'll start with introductions from our guests, and then the guests will interview each other about the QR SIG mentoring program and their experience.Kelly Guyotte  0:41  Thank you, Bowden. It's a pleasure to be here today. My name is Kelly Guyotte. I am an associate professor of qualitative research at the University of Alabama. I am also currently serving as the chair of the mentoring committee in the QR SIG. I had the immense pleasure of also working with Carlson she is a student in our program or educational research program with a specialization in qualitative research. And I'll turn things over to you Carlson so you can introduce yourself.Carlson Coogler  1:11  Yeah, hi, I'm Carlson Coogler at the University of Alabama, as was just said, I'm a doctoral candidate in educational research. I'm also the chair of the graduate student committee for the QR SIG. And Dr. Guy, as she mentioned, is my wonderful, lovely advisor, Professor, co teacher and mentor. So I'm very excited to do this with her. So I guess I'll go ahead and start asking me questions. So tell me about your experience with the QR segment authoring program. What do you do have done? What does it look like?Kelly Guyotte  1:38  Yeah, I had to I looked this up recently, too, because I wasn't sure how long I'd actually been on this committee. And it's been a long time, I actually joined the inventory committee in 2016. And so I started off as a committee member, I was vice chair of the committee in 2018. And then since 2019, I've been serving as chair of the mentoring committee. And so during that time, I have done a lot of things behind the scenes. So that's mostly where my my participation and support has been directed. So in terms of planning and organizing our various initiatives, I have also stepped in as needed to serve as a mentor for things such as the proposal Forum, which I think we're going to talk a little bit about, as well as the mentoring session. But really, a lot of the work that I've done has been helping to make sure these initiatives happen. And now as a chair, really supporting the committee members to make sure that we can continue to support our QR SIG membership. And I'm actually, this is gonna sound silly, but I'm looking forward to rolling off his chair because one thing that I really want to do and look forward to do is become more of a mentor in the QR SIG. So it's been really fun to plan and to be behind the scenes, but I really value mentorship. And so I'm looking forward to being able to to put myself out there a little bit more in support our various members who are seeking participation in our in our various initiatives.Carlson Coogler  3:09  That's awesome. Yeah. So what does the QR SIG mentoring do? What kind of help or assistance is available for students or early for faculty?Kelly Guyotte  3:19  Yeah, it's a really good question. We have three primary initiatives that we undertake as part of the QR SIG. So our first one is called proposal forum and proposal forum happens before AERA submissions are due every year proposal Forum is an opportunity for graduate students, for postdocs and for early career faculty who are submitting to AERA. Maybe for the first time or the second time, who would like to get some feedback on their proposals, and most usually send an email out sometime in mid May, early June or something like that. And we'll ask for folks who want to participate in that, then we will seek mentors that will be willing to read those proposals. And then we do some matching that there's a matching that happens. And then the folks who are seeking feedback will submit their proposals, which will be read by the mentors. And then the idea is that we're really helping these early career and emerging scholars to get great feedback and to really submit high quality submissions that have a high likelihood of getting accepted into the QR SIG program. Our second initiative is the mentoring session. And this is one that I think is probably is one of our more popular ones. And a lot of people have heard of it because it actually shows up on the AERA program. This one is geared toward graduate students and postdocs and I think you're actually participating this year and that right person, Carlson Coogler  4:49  yes, I am really excited about it. Kelly Guyotte  4:51  Great. The mentoring session. Like I said, it happens during the AI era annual meeting. This is an opportunity for folks to get together. Thankfully, we're gonna be back face to face this year, which we're really excited about. We ran it virtually last year. And it actually ended up being really lovely in a virtual setting as well. But typically what happens is folks come together, they get an opportunity to, to chat with one another to talk a little bit about what we call, quote unquote, areas of stuckness. So where are folks stuck methodologically. And so we invite senior scholars and folks who have experienced this type of thing and have wisdom that they can share, and to serve as support for these folks during the session that actually happens during the eight year a meeting. And then the final initiative is our office hours initiative. And so we've actually recently opened this up so that it caters to a lot of different types of scholars. So we have it open toward graduate students. So all of our initiatives are open to graduate students, postdocs, and faculty at any stage. So the idea here is that anyone who feels like they need mentorship can participate in this program. And if you're part of the QR SIG, you may have seen the emails have gone out quite recently on this one. This used to be a face to face meeting that happened at a era. But we've since moved that to be more virtual, although people who are attending AERA, of course, could meet face to face. But these are typically one on one meetings and they're you know, about half an hour in length, we call office hours because if your graduates, your professors office, during office hours, you're having a short one on one meeting, getting some really good focused feedback from them. And then sometimes these relationships continue to evolve, and people stay connected after that. And then sometimes it's a one off thing. But regardless, it's a great way to get some feedback on things that are going on with you methodologically.Carlson Coogler  6:44  That's awesome. I have experienced or am going to be experiencing all three of those. So it's nice to hear it described like that you describe some of this in your last answer. But is there anything you'd like to add about the process about like how mentors or mentees sign up?Kelly Guyotte  6:59  Yeah, we always submit our calls through the QR SIG listserv. And so if you're interested in participating in any of our initiatives, become a member of the QR SIG. And that way you can get these emails and get information about all of our initiatives. You may also have professors or colleagues who are members, and they may be willing to pass along the information to you. But the QR SIG is typically how we share that information our mentees matched to mentors. That is also a really good question. So I am just one of a team. We have a big committee of folks that work together on all of these initiatives. And they work really hard on the matching part. So typically, we try to design our forms in our surveys that we send out so that we can get information that will be helpful for us to match our mentees and our mentors in a way that's meaningful. So for instance, we may ask for things like methodological areas of interest areas that you're working in. Or we may ask things to the nature of theory, what are the theories that that you're you're working with. And then oftentimes, we have started to ask for specific mentors that folks would like to work with. And so we take all of these suggestions and all of this information. And we just have really smart people that are dedicated to making sure that these pairs and these collaborations are meaningful and thoughtfully designed and constructed. A lot of the behind the scenes work that we do as a committee is the matching that really took tends to take a lot of our time. And we just really try to make sure that people are paired with the types of folks that they're wanting, and that we allow, or we cultivate methodological and theoretical fit. Carlson Coogler  8:46  Definitely experienced that methodological and theoretical fit and how I've been matched. I really appreciate that. What are the or what does a typical session meeting meet up between mentor and mentee look alike?Kelly Guyotte  8:57  So that's that depends. And I mentioned all three of our initiatives. And I think I may have talked a little bit about this, but just to be really concise and straightforward with your answer with a proposal forum. The connection is purely through email. It's all virtual. They're encouraged if they want to, they could meet up and do a zoom or something like that. But typically, it's just the mentee emails. The proposal to the mentor reviews, it emails back feedback. So it's typically email and asy

In this episode, the QR SIG's Graduate Student Committee hosts a conversation with Dr. Cassie Brownell, Dr. Stephanie Shelton, and Dr. Sandra Guzman Foster about how to successfully navigate graduate school, dissertation reading and writing, and the job market. Below is a transcript of the conversation. Carlson Coogler  0:11  Yeah, so everybody, welcome. Thank you so much for coming to our first but hopefully not our last invited speaker about this hosted by the graduate student committee of the qualitative research SIG of AERA, my name is Carlson and I'm the chair of this wonderful group of people who make up the graduate student committee. And so first and foremost, I want to acknowledge them and around a virtual applause. Thanks for all their hard work. This would not have happened without them as what our groups are initiatives not happened without them. So thank you so much to Amir, Deleasa, Jen, Kristen, Ashley, and Mariia for the incredible job y'all have done with all of this and running and supporting our three initiatives, the reading group, the writing group, and the dissertation slash add group while being yourselves graduate students and therefore very busy. Second, I want to welcome our attendees and encourage you to participate in our initiatives. And so if you are not already on our listserv, you can send us an email and that qrsiggrads@gmail.com. And then we can put that in the chat, but also that's on the flyer. So if you if you're interested in joining the reading the writing of the dissertation group finding out more about, then we encourage you to join our listserv for that. So, and groups will be meeting soon. So if you have you're not missing anything if you haven't gotten started yet. Third, and of course, very importantly, I want to thank our speakers. We are so grateful for your time and energy and are eager to  [...]. Thanks so much. So first is Dr. Cassie Brownell. She is an assistant professor of curriculum teaching and learning in the Ontario Institute for Studies and education at the University of Toronto. Her research takes up issues of educational justice and equity in early childhood. Drawing on critical socio cultural theory, Cassie examines children's socio political development through school based studies as well as community based research. She has received funding from the National Academy of Education slash the Central Research Foundation, Canada's Social Sciences and Human Humanities Research Council, the International literacies Association and the National Council of Teachers of education. Samples of her research can be found in the pages of anthropology and education quarterly theory into practice, Teachers College record and research in the teaching of English. Dr. Sandra L. Guzman boster earned her PhD in educational leadership and policy studies at Arizona State University, where she was also at Gates Millennium Scholar and a Spencer interdisciplinary fellow. Prior to joining the University of the Incarnate Word Dr. Guzman Foster work as an educational consultant, where she worked on several projects such as leading research and evaluation teams and fieldwork, developing course curriculum for online programs, and serving as a research subject matter expert, Dr. Guzman foster brings experienced an online hybrid pedagogy, curriculum development, teacher education, program evaluation, educational research and social justice education. Additionally, Dr. Guzman Foster has taught at the K 12 level community college level at the university level in Texas, Arizona and Colorado. A first generation college graduate Dr. Stephanie Ann Shelton is Associate Professor of qualitative research and program chair of the educational research program and the College of Education at the University of Alabama and affiliate faculty member in the Department of gender and race studies and the Gifted Education Program, research interests are often interview and focus group base and include examining intersections of gender identities, gender expressions, sexualities, race and class and educational context. publications have appeared in qualitative inquiry, the International Journal of qualitative studies and education, qualitative research journal GLP, a journal of lesbian and gay studies, the International Journal of Transgender Health, The Journal of lesbian studies, and teaching and teacher education. She has published four books, including feminism and intersectionality in academia, women's narratives and experiences in higher education 2018, which was reprinted in 2020, and the just published Encyclopedia of queer studies and education. She was the 2020, recipient of the American Educational Research Association, Early Career Award and measurement and research methodology, and the 2021, recipient of the NCTE LGBTQ plus leadership and advocacy at work. So without further ado, I will pass this over to Dr. Brownell. Dr. Brownel  4:19  Thanks so much for having us. It's super exciting to be here with you all. And especially for this first event with such phenomenal co speakers here with me. I tend to speak a little fast, especially when I get excited. So I'm going to turn on the captions here for folks as well. So as mentioned, my name is Cassie Brownell, I'm an assistant professor just in my fourth year having just completed my interim tenure review this past year, and I have put together a bit of a slideshow to organize my thoughts and share with you all and so the link is available for you here. Just the tinyurl.com QR dash reading that you're also welcome to find me on Twitter either now or later. And I've framed this around motivation and procrastination, the lessons and overwhelm and academic reading. And I'm going to hopefully share some tips and tricks, but a little bit of my own journey with you as well. So to get us started just an overview of what I'll be talking about today, and I'm gonna begin with a portrait of a reader to be myself. And then moving forward talking about building your stack borrowing some language from NCTE, which I know Dr. Shelton will appreciate thinking about reading practice and reading as practice. And then thinking beyond overwhelm, which I think is a common thing when we're thinking about reading, at least for someone like me. So to begin, I wanted to insert a little comment here about this is really a portrait of a reluctant reader. So it felt like this image of this woman on her phone with her computer, that maybe with a text that she's turned her back to a really represents me a lot of days. And this is my reaction to how I felt to being asked to participate today was saying, what you asked me, I wouldn't say I particularly like reading. And then thinking, whenever I'm reading, I feel like I have to read a sentence, a paragraph, a page over and over again. And that's true, both as someone who is trying to often grasp ideas, theories, or in different sorts of ways remember the things that I'm reading. But it's also true in that I am someone who was recently diagnosed with ADHD. And so that sort of executive dysfunction and working memory is something that I've really been working through. And so I have a sigh here as well, in that having recently been diagnosed and started on some medications. Reading for me is something that is really quite different. And it's given me a new energy as I've moved forward with reading. So I'm coming to you today as someone who's practice reading a bit more recently in a new way, where I'm not having to reread sentences, pages and paragraphs over and over or reread articles over and over. But as someone who also has have had a lot of difficulty in reading at different times. So in thinking about those sorts of experiences, I wanted to start by talking a bit about myself as a reader, and both in graduate school and now as a faculty member. And so I have four big ideas here. The first is talking about building your stamina. And this is something that I borrow from my time when I was a first grade teacher. And we used to use this kind of program where we would talk about how you needed to build a young learners ability to sit and to read for longer periods of time. So we would start with just two minutes, two minutes of reading, and build up to having a little first grader who then is able to sit and read for 20 minutes. And this is something that I see as being really common and necessary for us in the world of academia, and learning to sit and read for long periods of time, or to pick up our reading and be interrupted by family members. But to come back to it in the same sort of way. And so in the same ways that we might build our stamina for working out, we need to do that too, for reading as well as for writing. The second sort of thing that I came into graduate school thinking about, and thanks to the wisdom of colleagues at Michigan State University who were farther along than I was in the program, as well as the wisdom of some of our faculty members who taught our initial pro seminars was to really not be afraid to divide and conquer our readings. So with a group of colleagues who are in my cohort, my first year at graduate school, we would take our readings for our Pro Seminar and each of us would really hone in on one particular reading, and then we would come together and we would share about those readings, having skimmed the other ones or maybe had more time to read some of them more closely than others. But it provided us a space to try out some of the ideas and you might want to talk about in class, to work through some of the questions you might have had in reading the different texts. But it also helped us to know that we didn't have to read every single word, which is something that I will come back to you throughout this sort of short presentation. Another thing that I think is really important that I definitely cried the first time my friend when Watanabe, who was a Michigan State student, and a bit

In this episode, Jessica Van Cleave (QR SIG Chair),  Alexandra Panos (Program Co-chair), and Cassie Quigley (Program Co-Chair) preview the Qualitative Research SIG's program for the AERA 2022 conference. They share about the business meeting, the conference hybrid format, tips for having a successful conference, and much more. Below are helpful conference links and the transcript of the conversation.  QR SIG AERA 2022 Program in Google Doc form: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tP3sxCO91cc-qGYpw876t8adf1L_K1fy0cA2WsrP0DA/editAERA video training for presenters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKfPWsLcI0cJessica Van Cleave  0:20  Welcome to qualitative conversations the podcast of the qualitative research Special Interest Group at AERA. I'm Jessica Van Cleave, the chair of the QR SIG, and I'm happy to be joined today by Cassie Quigley and Alex Panos, our program co-chairs. In this episode, we preview the QR SIG's program for the 2022 AERA annual meeting, discuss what members can expect from the hybrid format, and highlight opportunities to connect for QRC graduate students and members. Dr. Cassie Quigley is an associate professor of science education and Chair in the Department of teaching, learning and leading at the School of Education at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her doctorate doctorate in Curriculum and Instruction at Indiana University in 2010. Dr. Quigley's his expertise in qualitative research is focused on methodologies that center the participants such as community based methodologies, using data collection methods such as photo methods. In the past 11 years, she has published over 50 articles and book chapters focused on these methods, including in journals such as the International Journal of qualitative studies and education, qualitative inquiry, the Journal of mixed methods research. She also co authored a book on STEAM education titled An educators guide to STEAM education, which is published by teachers college press. She has presented her qualitative work at numerous conferences both nationally and internationally. Additionally, she serves as a program co chair of the American Educational Research Association's Qualitative Research Special Interest Group. She teaches qualitative research methodology courses on topics such as participatory action, research, validity and reliability for qualitative work and ethics around educational research. Cassie is completing her three year term as program co chair this year, and she's done an incredible job during this unusual and ever changing time for eight era and the annual meeting. I'm so grateful for her service and dedication and putting together meaningful programs over the past three years and she will be missed on the executive committee. Alexandra Panos is an assistant professor of literacy studies and affiliate faculty and measurement and research in the College of Education at the University of South Florida. She earned her doctorate in literacy, language and culture education with a minor in inquiry methodology at Indiana University Bloomington in 2018. Dr. Panos takes an interdisciplinary stance in her work as a critical qualitative methodologist and grounds her theoretical methodological and empirical work. In her substantive field of literacy studies. She has published numerous articles and book chapters that focus on the critical environmental and spatial dimensions of qualitative methodologies of literacy studies. Most recently, she has served as senior guest editor on a special issue focusing on the spatial dimensions have taken for granted qualitative research practices related to masking and anonymization published in the International Journal of qualitative studies and education. We are fortunate to have Alex remain as a program co chair one more year to complete her three year term after the 2023 annual meeting. So what we wanted to start by talking about is the fact that the annual meeting this year is hybrid. And this is the first time that AERA has has held the meeting in hybrid format. So how has that impacted the program? And what can attendees expect? Um, overall, that means that some of our sessions are going to be in person, and some of them are going to be virtual. And the virtual sessions are going to be accessible through Passable, which is the platform that Ara has hired this year and contracted with to provide the virtual conference experience. The in person sessions are going to look just like in person sessions have always looked at AERA. And so members can anticipate either attending sessions if they have registered for the in person or place based meeting, or I'm logging on to the Passable platform and attending via zoom, kind of similar platform. It's kind of zoom embedded within passable in order to access the virtual sessions. And then as happened last year, poster presentations are going to be provided in the virtual gallery that will be accessible both through the passable platform and the eight year website in our virtual gallery. Alexandra Panos  4:41  One thing to add to that, Jessica, sorry, I cut you off. I was just going to add that the play space participants can access the virtual platform space so for them it really is hybrid. But if you're a virtual, you can't access all playspace sessions. There are some that will be made available and streamed live through passable as well.Jessica Van Cleave  5:08  That's right, Alex. Yeah. So So depending on how you register, you're going to have access to different types of sessions. If you are in the playspace session, you'll have access to all of the various sessions. So I'm Cassie, can you give us an overview of the QR sync program? How many sessions there are and what kind of topics that attendees can expect to find?Cassie Quigley  5:30  Yeah, absolutely. We're really excited. And thank you all for your, you know, your work in the QR SIG. We will have seven in person paper or symposium sessions, we will have four virtual sessions that are paper or symposium sessions, one virtual business meeting, so hope to see you there and one in person mentoring session. So for the mentoring session, a folks who are participating have already received that information. And this is a closed session. But if you're interested in learning more, or joining this session next year, this is an annual event and you can contact them mentoring committee chair, Kelly Guyette. We have other exciting opportunities for mentorship as well, including mentor mentee office hours, we're so fortunate to have so many committed mentors, we thank them for their time and service to the QR SIG. And, Alex, do you want to just talk to us a little bit about the process for reviewing and accepting submissions? And what kind of things we tend to take into account as we're doing this work?Alexandra Panos  6:38  Yeah, definitely. Cuz he, um, so every year, the call goes out after after the conference. And then as program coaches, we wait for submissions, and look forward to receiving them. When we get submissions through the platform. We review each submission to be sure that they're complete, that they are a good fit for our SIG that there aren't any anonymization issues with those. And then we go on to invite reviewers who have expertise in the area of each proposal. So we've read each proposal, we invite reviewers to join us and thinking about those and give us their expert feedback. This is one of the reasons why we so value our SIG member reviewers, you are so essential to this process. I don't think Cassie and I could explain that enough. If you want to review in the future. Just a quick note, it's really helpful to indicate your areas of expertise using the keyword feature when you sign up to review. Because after we get the submissions when we review them, we make matches based on folks expertise. And once those reviews are returned, after a lot of hard work by reviewers, we carefully go through them looking at both the quantitative and qualitative feedback that each reviewer provides to determine which papers to accept. This year, we had fewer places, fewer allocated sessions and papers than we have in past year. So we definitely had to make a lot of difficult decisions. But as we process all the information we have available, we really take into account the reviews of these of the experts we invite to join us in this process, which includes three reviewers and one graduate student reviewer. And another thing about the system: how we access things. So we work on that back end system of AERA, which please sign up to review next year using that system. But it's a little different than the actual access to the conference system. So Jessica, I know you've been attending a lot of trainings on this. I wonder if you can share a little bit about how members can access the sessions that they want to attend through the political platform.Jessica Van Cleave  8:57  Yeah, absolutely. Alex, thank you. So if you are in San Diego, then the way that you attend sessions that are placed based in San Diego is you just go to them. So that is the easy part. Right? That's what we're used to doing. That is what's familiar back in the olden days of 2019. That is how we used to attend AERA, that option is still available and it's fantastic. So, if you have registered for the place based session, then that is how you will attend in person sessions. Now if you are a virtual registrant, you cannot attend to those playspace sessions. AERA is not planning to stream or record place-based sessions except for a select few as Alex mentioned earlier, like the Presidential sessions and things like that. Otherwise, the in person face to face playspace sessions are only accessible by those who are in San Diego attending the conference. If you are in San Diego, you can also attend the virtual sessions are obviously if you're a virtual registered, then you'll be attending those virtual sessions as well or presenting in t

In this episode, Amy Stich interviews Kathy Roulston on interviewing in qualitative research. This conversation is great for both beginners and advanced researchers. The following is a transcript of the conversation. Amy Stich  0:11  Hello, everyone. Welcome to qualitative conversations Podcast Series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. I'm Amy Stich and associate professor at the McBee institute of higher education at the University of Georgia and affiliated faculty with the qualitative research program here at UGA as well. I also currently serve as the CO-editor of the six newsletter with one of our students here at the Institute Erin Leach as a guest host today I'll be interviewing Dr. Kathy Roulston on interviewing. Dr. Roulston is a professor in the qualitative research program at the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia. Her research interests include qualitative research methods, specifically qualitative interviewing and analysis of talk in interaction. Her most recent books include interviewing a guide to theory and practice. That's published with sage just coming out in 2022. And Exploring the Archives A Beginner's Guide for Qualitative Researchers co authored with Kathleen de Morais, and published by Myers education press. Outside work Kathy enjoys working with fiber and textiles, and exploring the creative pleasure of spinning hand dyeing and weaving. Dr. Roulston thanks so much for joining us to discuss a topic that all of our qualitative listeners will very likely know at least a little something about an interviewing may even be something that some of our more experienced listeners may at times take for granted as an all too familiar tool for data collection, rather than a method that provokes very meaningful, often critical methodological questions that I know you're going to talk about today. So why don't we just start by you telling us a little bit about your scholarly interests and interviewing and how you got started?Kathy Roulston  1:57  Thank you, Amy, for that lovely introduction. So I first became interested in the methodological aspects of interviewing when I was doing my doctoral studies at the University of Queensland in the 1990s. I had conducted quite a few qualitative interviews prior to that as part of my master's degree in the early 90s. But when I did those interviews, I really saw them as a transparent means for gaining information about the world. So when I was doing my doctoral studies, I was learning about ethno methodological approaches to analysis from Dr. Carolyn Baker. And I took a very puzzling excerpt from an interview that I had conducted in my earlier study, and I reanalyzed it. And then this analysis helped me to get a better understanding of the performance of work that goes into the construction of interview data, in the ways that interviewers and interviewees produce interview data together, and then also how, as a researcher, it's possible to cut and categorize the interview transcripts in a way that can generate findings that can actually distort the ways in which the talk was produced. So I think there's quite a lot of writing about that now. But Dorothy Smith wrote an article back in the early 70s, called theorizing as etiology. And I used that to think about how coding based approaches to data analysis can hide how researchers contribute to the generation of interview accounts. And, of course, I've done methodological work on research interviews since that time, and I still am very intrigued by how research interviews get done.Amy Stich  3:54  It's so interesting. And that's a really lovely transition into some of those deeper methodological or substantive questions surrounding interviewing. Can you talk to us about some of the recent developments in interviewing?Kathy Roulston  4:08  Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Amy. So, over the last couple of years, I've been trying to keep up with new developments in interviewing. And I have to say there's an incredible range of innovations that qualitative researchers can use to inform their work. If you look at the methodological literature, interviewing history of any interviewing historically, you'll find that some of the strategies that are now being frequently used by researchers are not actually new. But I think what really surprised me when I started to look at the methodology, methodological literature is that in the last 10 years, there's just been an enormous amount of publishing in this area. So I kind of think about this in several different ways. So there's methodological work that is looks at particular approaches to conducting interviews, there's writing that talks about working with particular populations. And then there's work in which scholars are using new theories, to re theorize what it means to do into an interview and what interview data are. And then researchers are also taking out all of the new modalities that we use in everyday life to conduct interviews that differ from, I guess, early ideas of a research interview as a formal place based and in person interview. If you'd like I could talk a little bit in more detail about those four different strands. Amy Stich  5:44  That would be great. If you don't mind. Yes, please. Kathy Roulston  5:47  Sure. Well, in terms of how researchers approach interviewing, I think you'll see a lot more writing on how researchers who use interviews can account for sensory awareness. Now, the most familiar approach would be the use of visual methods. But people are also using sound, smell, taste, touch, and so forth. And then there's also a range of writing that examines materiality as it emerges in interviews. People bring objects to interviews that are used as prompts to talk about research topics. Sometimes the researchers bring those sometimes the participants bring those. And then researchers have looked at how technologies such as recording devices show up within interview talk, how people orient to those and what that means in an interview. And then, of course, we're quite familiar, I think now with the use of images in work, whether that's moving images, use of videos that people orient to, or still images, and then sometimes the researchers can bring those images to the interview, or they might engage participants in generating or bringing their own images. Now, there's also writing on various forms of graphic elicitation. Researchers can ask participants to draw diagrams or timelines, and then they talk about those within the interviews. And you'll see work where researchers attending to place in space in interviews. And then they might do this through go-alongs, in which interviews go along with their participants in cars or public transport. And then, of course, in walking interviews. Now, as I mentioned earlier, ethnographers have used these kinds of interviews for very long time, things like walking interviews, but I think what is different now is researchers do not necessarily find their work as ethnography. And then you'll see researchers using new technologies, such as global positioning systems, in conjunction with those mobile methods, and also creating maps in relation to walking interviews and mobile methods. And that they you'll see these in articles. Now, as a second strand of writing, you'll see a lot more attention now to culturally relevant approaches to research. And obviously, that's probably long overdue. Researchers will find lots of guidance about how to work with specific populations. And I'll just mention a couple here. So how to interview children around play based approaches. So you can see work where researchers using toys or puppets, you'll see research interviews used in inclusive ways with people with disabilities, and the various solicitation advice, or elicitation devices people use. There's work on use of American Sign Language with the deaf community. And then of course, there's much work on how to work with people from other cultures. And I think some of this work does use participatory approaches, where the participants participants themselves are key stakeholders in the development of the research topics, they might serve as co researchers or even peer interviewers. So the peer, the participants are co participants with the researchers and they might act as interviewers with other people. And then, of course, because researchers are increasingly conducting research in countries other than where they might present their work, you'll see a lot of research that's methodological to do with interviews on translation, interpretation, and what that means for issues of data analysis, the ethics and representation. And then, of course, there's more writing on how to conduct interviews with elite populations or how to recruit those for interviews and so forth. But I think if you look at the methodological literature that's been published probably over the last 75 years, I think probably almost any population can emerge a special in some way. So if what ever group you are choosing to conduct interviews with, it's just well worth looking at what methodological literature you might locate that can support your work. And I encourage listeners to think about that. And now moving on to theorizations of interviewing, there's a good deal of writing that draws on concepts from post structural and new materialist writing, and it reconceptualize as what interviews are and how we might think about them, and some of this critical of interview research as well. Although there's loads of critiques you could find that have gone on for decades about interviewing. So researchers have used concepts from Deleuze and Guattari book 1000 plateaus, such as the assemblage the fall the rhizome to rethink interviews and interview data. And then you also see ideas such as diffraction and interaction from scholars such as Karen Berard and cartographies, from Rosie Bradotti, applied to

In this episode Stephanie Shelton talks with Kiara Summerville, Erica Campbell, Krystal Flantroy, and Ashley Prowell about their experiences collaborating and co-authoring an article on Black Feminist thought in the field of Qualitative Inquiry. The episode raises important questions about representation, experience, and process in the doing and teaching of qualitative research. A transcript of the conversation follows.  Stephanie Shelton  00:10Right. Hello everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations Podcast Series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group, the American Educational Research Association. I'm Stephanie Shelton, a guest host for this episode on collaboration and co-authorship. And I'm excited to be joined today by my brilliant co-authors of a wonderful article. Krystal Flantroy, Kiara Summerville, Erica Campbell and Ashley Nicole Prowell. And so Kiara, if we could just introduce yourselves maybe an author order. So Kiara, then Erica, then Krystal, then Ashley, and then we'll get started.Kiara Summerville  00:47Hi, everyone. I'm Kiara Summervile. Dr. Kiara Somerville, a recent graduate of the higher education administration program at the University of Alabama. I currently work in the Division of Student Life at the University of Alabama. And so certainly, a scholar practitioner in every sense of the word, and I am excited to be here with you all. Erica Campbell  01:08Hello, everybody. My name is Erica Campbell, and I am a PhD candidate in the higher education administration program at the University of Alabama. And I'm excited because I will be graduating in May, and I will be defending my dissertation this January. So I'm excited to be on the job market looking for faculty positions. And I here I am a scholar practitioners affairs professional, but I want to take that to the faculty route. So I'm excited to be here with you all today.Krystal Flantroy  01:38My name is Krystal Flantroy and I'm currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that I graduate in July. I too, am a scholar practitioner who has found her way back to a classroom teaching position. And so I'm back to teaching high school science, which is something I love and love to do. But we'll see how it all works out in the end.Ashley Prowell  02:02My name is Ashley Prowell, or Dr. Ashley Prowell. And I am also a recent graduate of the social work department, PhD program. I'm also on the job market hoping to enter the professoriate and continue to do research and teaching. So yeah, I'm glad we didn't have to, like run down our research topic, because I'm so tired of writing about it, talking about it with everybody. So Stephanie Shelton  02:37We're here today to talk about your article that was published in the qualitative research journal. And it is titled, Finding ourselves as Black Women in Euro-centric theory: Collaborative biography on learning qualitative inquiry. And so I wanted to start by asking if you could share how this project got started, what, what initiated the ideas that ultimately led to this article.Krystal Flantroy  02:59And as it turns out, this project got started in, it feels like a group chat, right? We were, we would have class and then we would all leave class and talk in the parking lot before we all went to our cars, that led to a group chat of where we got to talk about things that we didn't understand things that we just didn't relate to things that were confusing in the readings of the theory that we were reading in qual three, and it kind of flourished from there.Kiara Summerville  03:28Right? We, as Krystal mentioned, were, you know, talking about frustrations and confusion that went along with it, this qualitative course that we were taking. And, and we thought about it one day, I think we were actually in the classroom after class one day, and had this thought like, well, maybe we should write about this, right? We all have a lot of thoughts about this. And, um, you know about our experience in that classroom and understanding the material and working together to make the make the material make sense to each other, we leaned on each other heavily for that. So we told ourselves, Well, how about we just write about this? Right. And I know, we'll probably get to this in a little bit, but we thought, you know, Dr. Shelton, would be a wonderful person to talk to about these thoughts, and to see if we can get something going.Stephanie Shelton  04:19So that's a perfect transition. Um, so could you talk through how you started the process of co authoring this paper? What did that process look like? Ashley Prowell  04:27I mean, I want to say, I want to say it was just, you know, just it just happened pretty naturally. I mean, like Krystaltal said, it started out in a group chat. And we all had these same, you know, same thoughts about what was going on in the classroom. So, I mean, I don't know if you're talking about like the ordering of authorship and how that happened. But I think just in terms of us all, you know, being engaged in this topic and wanting to instead of just kind of, I guess, complaining about it or griping about it wanting to be productive and, and turn it into something creative and productive for academia. And I feel like, since we've written this paper, like, if you just scroll through academic Twitter, you'll see like, you know, a lot of people are talking about this similar ideas these days, and kind of this incorporation of black thought, or black, you know, ideas into, you know, our readings in the classroom and, and just being more inclusive overall and responsive to other cultures. So I feel like we were definitely at the forefront. I feel like we were at the forefront, maybe we weren't, but, but it definitely feels good. That, you know, we're seeing more people talk about this issue in doctoral programs, and just overall in higher education,Erica Campbell  06:01Right. And I will also add that one of the things that we did, too, because we knew that we had material to write about or to share our personal narratives, and what that looked like in the classroom, also believe that we went to you, Dr. Shelton, to be honest. And we said, you know, we have this idea, just to kind of really just dive in about what our, you know, black feminist thought is, and then also to really think about how we use that with qualitative research and qualitative, philosophical, philosophical understandings. And so you gave us the idea, in terms of the methodology to really just think about how we could use that as an opportunity to kind of collaborate when it comes to our narrative. And I know we'll get to that in a little bit a little bit later, I'm sure. But that's where kind of the idea got the wheels to kind of keep moving, that you know, what this this is qualitative research, what are narratives are, what our experiences are in that classroom, and you kind of gave us a wheel with the methodology with that.Ashley Prowell  07:07And I guess, you know, earlier on, I think we also had the conversation of, you know, or at least I know, I brought this up and shared it with the group, just this idea of choosing a white professor to to, to being engaged with our scholarship or this manuscript that we were writing. And I know, while Dr. Shelton tends to be very open, and, or is very open, and often probably even can relate to a lot of the issues that we we talked about in our paper, are some of them. I think we chose Dr. Shelton, because because of that, that openness. But I do think, you know, we did think about like, what would the paper: How would things look different if we engage with a, an African American or a black? Professor? And I do think there are implications for that? I think it could, would she have been involved in our group chat? Or, you know, how would that have changed things in terms of our findings, and how we engage with the content throughout the course semester? So I think that is something that, you know, we should, I don't know, if you want to talk, share your own thoughts about that. But I know that's something that we brought up earlier on.Krystal Flantroy  08:27But I also think that we were, we were a bit treading lightly as we began, because we also were still in a class with a professor, whose course we were really critiquing for something that we thought was missing, that was something essential. And so it felt like, Are we really gonna write about this? Because the truly enough mean, we've all been taught by her are sitting in her course. And it's like, how do we know Levy, this, this heavy critique of the course that we've been in without feeling weird about it? So that was another thing. Stephanie Shelton  09:03So you've brought up some of these? The next question is really looking at like some of the challenges. And and so I think that these are definitely some that are really important. And I'm glad that, Ashley, you initiated some of these concerns, because very important, and thinking about like collaboratively writing, and then trying to go through this publication process, because I feel like a lot of times for graduate students publication seems like more of like an abstract concept. That's sort of reality. And so what were some of the challenges of the collaborative writing and the publication process when you're working through this article?Kiara Summerville  09:34I don't know that the when we actually started writing together and in sharing our mirrors with each other, that wasn't necessarily tough for me. I think on the front end, we had to learn the methodology. And that was something that we had to kind of sit with because I think even with the methodology and you know, the philosophers and we were attributing citing in our methodology for themselves, white men, right. And so we talked about how, you know, we were critiquing this use of using white philosophers in these course

In this episode, Dr. Travis Marn interviews Dr. Jori Hall, winner of the 2021 Qualitative Research SIG's Outstanding Book Award. The conversation revolves around Dr. Hall's book "Focus Groups: Culturally Responsive Approaches for Qualitative Inquiry and Program Evaluations." The following text is a transcript of the conversation. ---Travis Marn  00:11Hello everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast series hosted by the Qualitative Research Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association. I am Travis Marn, the current chair of the Qualitative Research Special Interest Groups Outstanding Book Award Committee. I'm excited to be joined today by Dr. Jori Hall, who was the recipient of the 2021 outstanding Book Award for her book, "Focus Groups: Culturally Responsive Approaches for Qualitative Inquiry and Program Evaluations" published by Meyer Education Press in 2020. Dr. Jori Hall is a multidisciplinary researcher, evaluator, and professor at the University of Georgia. Her work focuses on social inequalities and addresses issues of evaluation and research methodology, cultural responsiveness, and the role of values in privilege within the fields of education and health. She has contributed to numerous peer-reviewed journals and other publications like the "Handbook of Mixed Methods Research" and the "Oxford Handbook of Multi- and Mixed-Methods Research." She has evaluated programs funded by the National Science Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the International Baccalaureate Foundation. In recognition of her evaluation scholarship, Dr. Hall was selected as the Leaders of Equitable Evaluation and Diversity Fellow by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Thank you for joining me here today, Dr. Hall. It's a privilege to have you with us.Jori Hall  01:32Hey, Travis, it's an honor to be here. Thank you for having me.Travis Marn  01:36So we had a highly competitive field last cycle and your book stood out immediately to members of the committee. The committee was very impressed with how you evolved a common qualitative method like the focus group, and innovatively lensed through cultural responsiveness. Considering the rapidly changing context of what it means to conduct qualitative research with and in marginalized communities, your book is exceptionally timely and innovative. The committee was impressed with how welcoming your book was to new researchers, while not losing any of the depth and complexity of your topic. The feeling of the committee about your book can best be summed up by the very first sentence a member of the committee sent after they read your book, quote, "this book is a must read text for any qualitative researcher and program evaluator who is considering working with focus groups, or already doing so." Your book richly deserved our 2021 Outstanding Book Award.Jori Hall  02:27Well, that is humbling to hear. I appreciate you sharing that I don't think I heard that quote. So again, thank you so much. And I will say, if it is something that is digestible it is because I have spent years teaching courses on qualitative inquiry and I don't lose sight of the fact that I am constantly trying to communicate to novice and even seasoned researchers alike, how it is to think about qualitative research and how to use it in ways that are responsive. And so I'm glad that that came across in the book, because it's something that I'm always challenged by always thinking about how to best describe any particular method. But in this case, focus groups. I do think that focus groups, as you said, is something that is underutilized. It's a common method, people heard of it before, but in some respects, it is underutilized. And given today's climate, with everything being online due to COVID, there are ways to think about it that can be creative, that can be culturally responsive. And that can even bring some rich information to any research project. So I hope people can see that as they encounter the book and take it up.Travis Marn  03:52I think the accessibility and how easy to read and how well structured the book just lends itself to being a work that anyone can use any kind of researcher, whether you're just starting out, or whether like you said they're seasoned researcher, like I appreciate it, you have whole chapters on like online focus groups, and how to do indigenous focus, focus groups, and all the way from design to analysis, your book, it's really kind of an all in one for anyone looking to conduct high quality focus groups. So we definitely with the committee, we really appreciated that about your book. So why don't you just tell us about your book?Jori Hall  04:31Wow, that's a big question, but I appreciate it. So the book tried to do different things. And I'm glad that it was executed well, because it was it was quite a challenge. I wanted to tackle some topics that don't get a lot of light or when they do get light. It's within the context of a larger methodological handbook, for example, and one chapter or one section is devoted to focus groups. So I'm very excited that we have an entire book dedicated to focus group and highlights how to do those were different types of folks. And so that's what the book is about. That's what I aim to do is to say, "Okay, here's a relatively common method that's underutilized. How can we think about that with respect to different types of groups," and I thought about which groups that I wanted to focus on. And there's so many more groups that deserve attention. But again, the book had limits, I have limits. And so these were the ones that rose to the top based on my experience. And I also wanted to have examples, right? I feel like oftentimes, you could share information. But to make it more concrete, give folks an example. Let them see how it was done in practice. And so the reason why those particular groups got selected the older adults is a group I looked at, I looked at indigenous folk, I look at Black women, like you were saying, and I had really strong examples, from practice taken from former students, current evaluators, current researchers that are in the field trying to make this work happen. And I wanted to be also very transparent, and very realistic about how it is this methodology gets implemented. And that's to say, it is challenging work. It's not easy to make those connections in the context of research. So within the examples that are sprinkled throughout the book, there are lessons learned, what would you have done differently, so people reading the examples can benefit from that those lessons learned? I think they're highly instructive. And I'll just say too, one of the things that's unique about focus groups, and I try to convey this in the book is that different from individual interviews, the most fascinating thing is, you get what I call a twofer trap. And a twofer is you get the interview data, but you also get observational data. And so you get to witness how it is people construct meaning. And I think in real time, and it's very dynamic. And I think that that's really fascinating. So they have a method where you get interview data, and observational data is something that is unique to focus groups, I think and, again, that's that's what I wanted to put in the book. To get across that we need to take advantage more so of the observational data that focus groups can provide the dynamics between the participants themselves. And lastly, I'll say, there is a social justice component that I tried to weave through as well. And this is hugely important given the culturally responsive orientation that I have Travis, because one thing I'm trying to say in the book is this focus groups in and of themselves, do not require you to do anything with the data beyond you know, collected from the focus group, moderate all of it. But the the lens that I'm coming from the perspective that I'm coming from is saying to be culturally responsive also includes being active action about data, right, doing something with the data, that's a benefit to the particular community. And so to think carefully about those things, how can it benefit the community? So there's lots of other things in the book, but those are some of the main things that I set out to accomplish with the book, Travis.Travis Marn  08:25And I think the examples that you were talking about the chapter on indigenous focus groups, to me was just so insightful, even someone I've never done, focus group before. And reading it really kind of showed me how much goes into kind of that social justice focused focus group. And so I'm wondering, how did you pick which groups that you wanted to kind of highlight in the book? Jori Hall  08:50Yeah, and I was alluded to this a little bit before, but again, it came out because these are the kinds of groups that I personally worked with. And then also, for the case examples, I wanted to make sure for whatever groups I decided to put in the book that I had strong case examples. And so those happen to be the ones that I have strong case examples for I have been working, teaching, conducting research at UGA University of Georgia for over a decade. And because of that, Travis, I've worked with a lot of students, a lot of graduate students, and I called on some of those former graduate students to help me think about the cases in the book. So all of these things to have is what I'm saying is all these things kind of work together to make the decisions about which ones rose to the top. And you know, even within each group, there are there is so much diversity, right? There's no one indigenous group. And so, and I just wanted to celebrate that and and I hope that comes across that I'm not suggesting that there is one type of anything, but that and that there's diversity within the groups that I'm talking about. So I hope that that comes across,Travis Marn  10:09I think it definitely does in your work and through your e

In this episode, Dr. Jenni Wolgemuth interviews the QR SIG's 2021 Outstanding Dissertation Award winner Dr. Marie Vea. Dr. Vea is the Assistant Dean for Student Services and Staff Development at the University of Vermont. Dr. Vea's dissertation is titled Sense of Place and Ways of Knowing: The Landscape of Experience for Black, Indigenous and People of Color in Natural Resources, Environmental Education and Placed-based Learning. The follow text presents a transcript of the recording. ---Jenni  0:25  Hello, everyone and welcome to qualitative conversations a podcast series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. I'm Jennifer Wolgemuth, the current chair of the qualitative research special interest group outstanding dissertation award committee. I am very excited to be joined today by Dr. Maria Vea, who is the recipient of the 2021 outstanding dissertation Award for her dissertation titled, Sense of Place and Ways of Knowing: The Landscape of Experience for Black, Indigenous and People of Color in Natural Resources, Environmental Education and Placed-based Learning. Dr. Vea is an assistant dean for student services and staff development at the University of Vermont in the School of environment natural resources, where she has worked and studied for over 20 years. Her areas of research expertise and experience include green jobs and internships, social justice, and engaged learning. Thank you for joining me today, Dr. Vea. I'm really thrilled to learn more about you and your work. So to get us going, I was thinking our audience would appreciate learning more about your dissertation work. Can you talk about your dissertation, maybe about its scope, and its methodological focus.Marie  1:54  Thank you, Jenni. And thank you also for the opportunity to talk with you more and to for the award, I was really honored to stand with so many wonderful researchers, and also to bring some light to some of the work that I and my co researchers and colleagues have been doing. And as you mentioned, so the title of the dissertation speaks a lot to what the content and scope is. So sense of place, and ways of knowing. So where we are in place, not just physically but also metaphorically and figuratively, and ways of knowing epistemologies, how we arrive at the things that we believe we know and are important to us and make meaning of experience. But that's specifically what is experienced for black, indigenous and people of color bipoc folks in the field that I spend the most of my time and career in. So those are places related to natural resources, environmental education, and place based learning. So I've worked in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources for 17 years, and have worked with bipoc folks coming through those curriculum in the environment, and have found witnessed the challenges that a lot of the students, alumni and colleagues have within environmental learning and working spaces. So the dissertation really focuses on what has been called academic imperialism and epistemic injustice, how ways of knowing and experiences of this population of folks are invisible alized, diminished, erased from the larger environmental narratives. And oftentimes, what I experienced is that when we ask questions about why aren't people of color interested, or in the environmental fields, it's from a perspective of no lacking something, or it's not interesting enough, it's from a deficits, perspective. And this dissertation focuses on the strengths based perspective because, like, with underrepresented folks of all identities, we're here, we've been here and we continue to be here. And why is that? How do we sustain how do we survive? So the dissertation is a strengths based perspective, with co-researchers that are nine alumni of the Rubenstein school. And we came together to share stories and images and reflections in an environment that really was inspired by indigenous research methodologies, methodologies and methods and came out understanding having a better understanding of our individual ways of knowing and our collective Ways of Knowing that help us to survive and thrive in these learning and working spaces. A big part of the journey qualitative research. So coming together with people that I had long time relationship with, and standing shoulder to shoulder and strength to strength with them, acknowledging and honoring their experience and wisdom, and uplifting, that they have as much wisdom and expertise of their experience as anybody that might have a credential behind their name. So the other piece that I'll just add in terms of scope, and I'm talking to primarily I hope, folks in education in higher education and environmental education, and in some part, telling them what has happened and how we can make a change. But really, I want to talk to the folks of color that are wondering, how can I make find my space in place in the field of education in research in the environment? And how do I do that, that is in integrity with who I am, where I come from my ancestors, and with a spirit of joy in the face of challenges, especially in the last couple of years. So, so all of that is, is part of the scope of this particular work.Jenni  6:26  Beautiful, I'd love to hear your talk. And and that really comes through so clearly in reading your work. One of the things that I appreciated about it as a methodologist is that the the commitment and the ethic and the epistemology, your epistemological position, seem to drive your methodology that the methodology emerged through the process of the inquiry, as opposed to what we so often see, which is the methodology was chosen and decided in advance. So I would be sort of interested to hear your thoughts on that, particularly in relation to your decision to take a participatory approach to do this as a collaborative work. Can you talk about why you involved your participants, as co researchers, and then more broadly, about the methodological decision making that you made this work?Marie  7:28  Thanks, Jenni, it's, it's interesting and great that you should say that the methodology didn't drive the work was the the the work, the capital W work that drove the methodology. And if, you know, I was a career counselor for a number of years, and I'm still kind of a career counselor when I advise students. And oftentimes, I think the aspiration for all of us is that, that I can show up to my full as my full self wherever I am. And I'm working with students for the last 20 plus years and specifically with students that are interested in the environment for the last 17 building relationship, telling stories creating environments where people can explore and fail and be awkward and you know, share and be vulnerable is part of what I think really makes the community where work really vital. And so that when I was exploring dissertation work and doctoral work, from the very beginning, I wanted it to be creative. I wanted to I wanted it to keep me engaged, and have it be fun. I don't know that you can use the word fun in research I tried. And, and also have it be you can only tell stories, best the stories that you know, well. And the stories I knew well. We're working with students, with students of color, specifically, as they came through four years of development and in education, and then after they graduated. So when I thought about what I wanted to research and what what I wanted to spend a lot of time and heart on. It was with the students and alumni, actually, and these co researchers were alumni from the years 2005 to 2018. I kept in touch with them all of those years, dinners and chats and walks and adventures and really had gotten to see them through many years of change and, and identity work. So my I had several proposals for dissertation before it actually landed on this one. That's probably the case with A lot of people, but um, but out of relationship and love, I so wanted to tell the story of these folks that came through a lot of experience, and we're making changes in the world that I so admired. And I wanted to do it in a way where it felt like we were family coming together over the course of a few months. And certainly over the course of the year that I was writing this up. So um, so that drove the methodology, being in relationship, telling stories, being accountable to each other, creating environments where we could ask hard questions of ourselves, and of each other, and honoring the wisdom that they all brought. And it came together really beautifully. Because we loved being with each other. We love telling stories. And over the course of the two to three months that we conducted the research of talking and sharing stories, we saw each other through many changes and the methodology of a visual relational narrative inquiry, using images and stories. And using larger narratives as, as a means of making meaning just felt really natural. That's how we conducted our relationship, even before we could call it a dissertation research. So that's how we came to the methodology. And I have to, I have to give a shout out to my influences, Kelly Clark Keefe and the Rubenstein school. The the many authors, Robin kimmerer, and Gregory kahit. De and so many people that were part of the story and seen and unseen ways. It's a huge network. And I think that's part of a qualitative research is for me, is that it's not just when I sit down and crunch data, but it's all of my experience that bears meaning to what I'm trying to make sense of at the time.Jenni  12:13  I love that response I've been involved in pulled into not unwillingly some grant writing, and to do grant writing, you need to tell people what you're going to do in advance. And it's difficult to for me to, to do that we're going to do this in advance, but also hold that space for the emergent methodology in the emergent design and make everyone or

In this episode, Amir Michalovich, PhD Candidate at University of British Columbia, interviews Dr. Christina Sliver on Computer Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis. They cover a wide range of issues and topics within CAQDAS, share numbers resources and recommendations, and talk at length about how graduate students might benefit from CAQDAS. The follow is the transcript of their conversation. Amir 0:25 Hello, everyone, welcome to qualitative conversations, a podcast series hosted by the qualitative research special interest group of the American Educational Research Association. I'm Amir Michalovich, a member of the graduate students committee of the qualitative research special interest group, and a doctoral candidate in the department of language and literacy education at the University of British Columbia. As a guest podcast host. I'll be speaking today with Dr. Christina Silver on computer assisted qualitative data analysis, otherwise known as CAQDAS with a specific view of how graduate students might employ it, the kinds of challenges that they might face and some of the ways to address those challenges. Dr. Christina Silver manages the cognitive networking project based in the Department of Sociology in the University of Surrey in the UK, for which she leads the training and capacity building activities. She's the co founder and director of QDAS Qualitative Data Analysis Services, which provides customized consultancy services for individuals and groups engaged in qualitative analysis. She has many years of experience teaching CAQDAS, and has written extensively on the learning and adoption of CAQDAS. Christina is co author with an Lewin's of the book using software and qualitative analysis. And with Nick Wolf Of the five level QDA method. She has also published key articles and book chapters exploring the relationship between qualitative or mixed methodologies and technology, specifically, the use of dedicated contest packages. Alright, well, thank you, Christina, for joining us for this podcast episode. I am absolutely thrilled to speak with you today. I'd like to start with a basic question about CAQDAS. What is CAQDAS? And why should graduate students consider using CAQDAS software?Christina 2:16 Okay, so Hi, thanks a lot for inviting me, it's great to have this chat. So CAQDAS is an acronym that stands for computer assisted qualitative data analysis. So it's used to refer to software and other applications digital tools that have been specifically designed to facilitate qualitative and mixed methods analysis. It's an acronym that was developed in around 1991, by Nigel fielding and reily, after they convened the first conference, looking at software to facilitate qualitative analysis. So now it's used as an umbrella term to relate to all of these digital tools of which there are now dozens available. The thing about CAQDAS packages in terms of their use by students, graduate students, also undergraduate students and other researchers is that they are one of the kind of tactics that we have available at our disposal to operationalize our analyses. There are some debates about their use. And that's something that we'll probably touch on later on in our discussion. For me, you know, it's really important at the outset to realize that, although there are many ways that CAQDAS packages can facilitate analysis, they can help us organize our data, they can help us access different aspects of our analysis process, it's still possible to do bad analysis using CAQDAS packages, just like it's possible to do good analysis without using them. So that's a really important starting point in thinking about whether and how to use these kinds of tools. But for me, you know, really, the main thing is the access that it gets to the process. So using a dedicated CAQDAS package gives us access to the materials that we're working with. And that will be the data that we're working with the qualitative data, but also, other supplementary materials that form the context of a given study also gives us access to the ideas we have about what's interesting and meaningful in our data, allowing us to get back to those earlier thoughts. And also really importantly, in terms of process, it gives us access to the history, the journey of our analysis process. And for students, that's really important because when we're doing a dissertation, it's often as much about how we went about doing it and the lessons that we learn from that as it is the findings that come out of our research. So it can help in various ways, but it's also a useful skill set to have. I think when you're learning about qualitative methods, generally, learning about the technologies that are designed to facilitate the process is really useful for anyone who wants to have a research career after their studies. Were there That's within academia or outside of academia, because many qualitative and mixed methods, researchers are using these tools for their work. Now,Amir 5:08 that's fascinating. And I think that the notion of access is really important here in the sense of having that possibility to easily retrieve pieces of your data. And also, how do you conceptualize that data in different stages during the project. So we know that there's this growing need for graduate students to be familiarized with CAQDAS packages, but there is some confusion sometimes about how CAQDAS software is used, whether it's a method of analysis or something that kind of supports analysis. So why do you think people sometimes confuse CAQDAS software use with a method of analysis?Christina 5:45 Yeah, a good point. And something I think that continues to be discussed, even after all of these many years since these tools have been available. For me, I think there's two interrelated reasons for the kind of confusion between the software and the method of analysis. First of all, a misunderstanding or an assumption that the software does the analysis for us. And secondly, unsubstantiated and outdated criticisms about the negative effects of using CAQDAS packages, in terms of the kind of craft work that qualitative analysis involves. So these kind of misunderstandings and criticism started in the earliest moments of the availability of CAQDAS packages. But despite a fairly large body of literature now that dispels the notion that CAQDAS is a method of analysis, these kinds of misunderstandings and criticisms are still being perpetuated informally by some teachers of qualitative methods who are not kept as users themselves. But also formally in the literature, we see these misunderstandings and criticisms promoted, and that's often also by non users of these tools. So, as a caveat before I, before I carry on and talk about that a little bit more, you know, I'm not saying that everybody should use them, or that it's wrong not to use them, it's just understanding the role of them is really important. I guess the assumption that CAQDAS does the analysis is the thing to think about first. So for me, there's kind of two differing reactions to the realization that the software doesn't do the analysis. First are those who are saddened that it doesn't do the analysis, you know, some people are looking for a shortcut to accomplishing their work, and they want the software to do the analysis. So they're disappointed when they realize that that's not the case. So technology is developing really fast at the moment. And there are now some CAQDAS packages that incorporate AI technologies, such as machine learning, and therefore provide a lot more assistance than than was the case a few years ago. But at the end of the day, it's always the user, the researcher, who decides what to do, who decides when to do it. And who decides what it all means. So interpretation, differentiating interpretation from analysis, I think something that it's really important. But on the other end, sometimes there are people who are kind of outraged at the idea that kept us would do the analysis. So that's the other the other end of that continuum. So those are the researchers who really price the human interpretive processes, which underlie many approaches to qualitative data analysis. And it tends to be the this group of researchers who criticize CAQDAS because they think that that the software is taking over in some way. And therefore, that's where the criticisms come from. So it's interesting to me that that idea that the software does the software do, the analysis is understood very differently, depending on our understandings and engagements with the tools. So I guess the other thing I just wanted to say is that some colleagues of mine, Christy Jackson, Trina Paulus, and Nick Wolf, they wrote a really excellent article on the perpetuation of unsubstantiated criticisms of CAQDAS that was published in 2018. And they look at four different criticisms and kind of debunk those, but also look at how the literature kind of perpetuates those ideas. And I think it's really interesting to, you know, reflect on those criticisms. And you know, if you become a user of a CAQDAS package, to understand the context of those debates, so that you can place yourself within that context, and sort of justify your use of the software.Amir 9:36 Amazing. I think there's so much importance in understanding that context, and also and thinking very carefully about how we approach the role of CAQDAS in our work. What I found so interesting about your work with colleagues as well, is that you've really tried to unpack different ways in which we can think about that the role of CAQDAS in our work, how we can approach it and how we can operationalize it. And I've noticed that in your work in terms of First in terms of how we think about the kinds of skills that we need to attain when we work with when we want to work with CAQDAS, or the kinds of practices that we need to engage with. You mentioned three factors, among other factors that are particul

In this special episode, Qualitative Conversations hosts a panel discussion with scholars who weren't able to present at the 2021 AERA conference due to technical difficulties. The particular panel session discussed in this episode was titled Critical Participatory Inquiry as Sabotage and included the following participants: Meagan Call-Cummings, George Mason University; Giovanni Dazzo, George Mason University; Sharrell Hassell-Goodman, PhD candidate in the Higher Education Program with a focus in Women and Gender studies and Social Justice at George Mason University; Alexandra S. Reed, George Mason University; Rodney Hopson, U of Illinois-Urbana Champaign; Melissa Hauber-Özer, George Mason University & Jesuit Worldwide Learning; Elisabeth L. Chan - Northern Virginia Community College & George Mason University. The following is the transcript of the conversation. Rodney 0:24 Good morning. Welcome. I'm Rodney Hopson, a faculty member at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign professor and evaluation in the queries division, Interim Director of Korea, really excited to have some colleagues here today talking about some really critical issues. If you didn't get an opportunity to hear a Ura, I was discussing for the roundtable disruption, interruption and change. It's not enough. What we need is sabotage, critical participatory inquiry as sabotage in and of the Academy. So I'm going to open up by having our colleagues introduce themselves and their key ideas and then come back around with questions of dualism.Melissa 1:16 I'm Melissa Hauber-Özer, as I recently completed my PhD at George Mason University in the international education program. And our first paper in the panel was a collaborative counter storytelling piece that I co authored with Megan, Sharrell and Elizabeth which examine an incident that occurred within our ongoing YPAR project or youth participatory action research project. And this incident, and then our conversations about it after the fact pushed us to consider our power relations within the collective and then especially around race and gender. And then our relationships or interactions with the host institutions within which you're doing this critical, participatory work.Giovanni 2:05 Great. Thanks, Melissa. My name is Giovanni Dazzo. I'm a doctoral candidate in research methodology at George Mason University. My article was titled small acts of sabotage, unraveling expertise to push for restorative forms of inquiry. And in this paper, I've been reflecting on my personal background and how I needed to bring this into my own methodological work. And as a doctoral candidate specializing in critical methodology, I needed to acknowledge my identity as a child of Sicilian immigrants being raised in small rural California town, into a family of farmers and laborers. For example, in farming communities, when we see smoke billowing from an open field of crops, this isn't necessarily a sign of danger, but one of renewal of coordinated and careful sabotage. And when done carefully, this practice called slashing burn or slashing cover has been ecologically sustainable for millennia. So I started to think about qualitative research in this way, what type of lens needs to be cleared, burned and left uncultivated for some time, and reflecting on which methodological processes have been around for so long, that they're worth burning down? So in this paper, I discussed three areas. How often are We inspired by the words of our co researchers and community members, so much so that they should be cited alongside the greats who have 1000s of citations, but where we relegate their words to the finding sections of our papers? Second, I started questioning my parsimonious citation practices. So in some cases, I simply use terms like double consciousness and simply include parentheticals for WEB Dubois, and our usual APA and Chicago styles. But it's almost an eraser divestment of knowledge divorced from the historical, contextual, political and racial. So this small act of sabotage has required me to credit and balance the words of others at the expense of my own. And last, I've begun to explore what I call known methods or those that community members and I already use in our daily lives. So when I talk about these non methods, it's not about erasing our knowledge as researchers, but more about acting in humility to unlearn our methods through the act of recognizing community expertise. So I don't simply dissenter, my experience or romanticized community members traditional knowledge, which is another issue in and of itself, but recent are both acknowledging each as residing in expertise. Thank you, Giovanni.Rodney 4:48 I'mSharrell 4:49 looking forward to reading your work. Hello, I'm Sharrell Hassell-Goodman. I'm a PhD candidate in the higher education program with a focus in Women and Gender Studies. And social justice. So my paper is a self study as a result of a black feminist critical participatory action research project, in which a group of 22 undergraduate and graduate women of the African diaspora and when I say African diaspora, we represent black African American, African, Afro Caribbean, Afro Cuban and Afro Latina women operate as a research collective. Throughout this manuscript I explored an in darkened feminist epistemological approach to critical participatory action research as an act of sabotage to radically center black women's knowledge as legitimate. I document the ways in which I navigated in negotiated my ethical commitments and obligations to the research collective, through critical events analysis. Along the way, I realized that my voice around knowledge shifted, and my orientation in the classroom was disrupted. I look at three incidents around my experiences in the classroom throughout the article. Using the researcher journal as data and critical events analysis as a framework, I explored the following questions. One, how does a first generation woman of the African diaspora a researcher come to know to what does it mean for black woman's knowledge to be interpreted as legitimate? And three, how is research an act of self sabotage? As a result of this study, I found that in darkened feminist epistemological approach to participatory action research is critical to undo the ratio of black woman's knowledge in the academy, exposing the nature of white supremacy that maintains normative confines within the Academy is to understand the challenges associated with other cultural norms and standards, specifically black women to be seen as legitimate.Elizabeth 7:00 Thank you, Sharrell. My name is Elizabeth Chan. I'm an associate professor at Northern Virginia Community College, and also a PhD candidate in multilingual, multicultural education at George Mason University. And I worked also on the paper together with Cheryl and Melissa and Megan that, Melissa, so very well outlined at the beginning.Sasha 7:28 Thanks, Elizabeth. Hello, my name is Sasha Reid and I am a PhD candidate at George Mason, studying special education and qualitative research methods with special interest in intellectual and developmental disabilities inclusion, and accessible and equitable research opportunities. I'm in the process of completing a three paper dissertation which is aimed at understanding the concept of inclusion at the post secondary level, from young adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities through a critical participatory inquiry project. My panel paper was titled sabotaging method the tensions of accepting responsibility. And I'm drawing particularly from paper three, which documents the process of how I've approached navigate, and in reconciling my researcher responsibilities and commitments to my researcher group during the entire traditional research cycle process. So question, design and approach, data collection, data analysis, and deciding on next steps. And I'm really focusing on where and how I'm yielding my position of power to disrupt that traditional cycle, and where I can design or simply leave room for organic participation to occur with participants with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Throughout I'm grappling with the following questions which guide the paper from the era panel? What is recognized as Reacher research in my field, field being special education and disabilities? And how am I now forgetting the difference between a method and a way of inquiry to Who is this research for and three, how is my power and positionality as a person who does not identify as having disability tied up in this tension of responsibility, my responsibility to produce knowledge that's deemed academically significant, as well as my responsibility to meaningfully include a commonly forgotten population in the research arena.Megan 9:52 Thanks, Sasha. My name is Megan Call-Cummings. I'm an assistant professor of research methods at George Mason University where we're all From in one way or another, so I specialize in participatory feminist and critical qualitative methodologies. The paper I wrote for this panel is called sabotaging significance, a call for less research and more organizing. The paper is kind of a description of my journey of sort of critical reflexivity and kind of messy and fluid processes of both and sometimes simultaneous adaptation to and also rejection of the status quo within academia. So over the course of the last seven years, I've sort of shifted professional positions from doctoral student to university faculty member and I've kind of flipped back and forth often between a research trajectory that I would consider to be kind of like edgy and anti racist, but still within the bounds, like the safety bounds of being deemed acceptable. And then research that kind of tries to give the middle finger to academia to you know, my university, even my future tenure committee, right? It's like, whatever I'm going to do what I want. If I get ten

Welcome. Tervetuloa. My name is Mirka Koro, I come from ASU, and I go by she and hers. I would like to acknowledge the land on which I am standing here in Phoenix and the original Hohokam caretakers of this land. I would also like to thank the Egon Guba awards committee and QRSIG chair Jessica VanCleave and her executive committee for this amazing honor and opportunity to share my thoughts with you all. Despite my indefinitely youthful appearance and my love of Apocalyptica, I have a somewhat lengthy past with qualitative inquiry. Aaron, Juha, who are my stimulating discussants, Egon Guba, and I are entangled in our past and hopefully our experimental and philosophical qualitative inquiries will keep forming and shaping new relationalities among us and others in the future. I think it was 1998 when I attended my first AERA, heard amazing talks, and met Egon and Yvonna. At that time, I also attended my first QRSIG business meeting and thought to myself how excited I was about qualitative inquiry, stimulating scholarly exchanges, thinking, doing, theories, and paradigms. Egon’s Paradigm dialogue and Yvonna and Norman’s leadership with QI and ICQI were very inspiring for a beginning scholar. Since early 2000s Aaron’s work on methodology, Foucault, philosophy, ethics, and responsibility has been intellectually engaging and provocative for me. My entanglements with Juha, in turn, extends even further in linear time. I met Juha during my master’s studies and he introduced me to the world and practice of qualitative inquiry. I remember vividly attending Juha’s lectures and methodological seminars describing his exciting field work. His critical scholarship, philosophical knowledge, work with Freire’s legacy, and intersecting lines of methodology are truly inspiring. Mahtavaa etta olet taalla tanaan Juha videon valityksella! Entangled narratives, shared professional and personal histories, paradigm dialogues, multiple matter of and within factory and working-class town of Tampere Finland, meetings rooms of SQUICK in Athens GA, endless sunlight and scented orange blossoms of Phoenix AZ come together today. I have multiple titles for this presentation yet all of them are quite inaccurate. Title 1: Restless methodologies and speculative wonderings multipliedTitle 2: What does the light have to do with this? Title 3: Lived scholarly possibilities of (methodological) multiplicityTitle 4: If we take speculation seriously…we need to multiply- also methodologicallyTitle 5: Lost in the words but still alive-- many methodological lives of qualitative matterAs you can tell, I deliver this talk with much speculation and hesitation. My methodological wonderings will not have core components or clear argumentative logic. The talk might not even offer anything new especially if one considers the relational nature of knowing and situatedness of being as simultaneously historical, already already here, and always multiple. Light encounters, in turn, have everything and nothing to do with my presentation today. This talk is designed to be light in its effects- dizzy, requesting little effort, having little weight, move away from inner light and truth, something that informs, to ignite and spark. I hope this talk may offer some provocations in the form of thoughts, wild ideas, images, light effects, and conceptual and theoretical movements and more. Maybe something I will say or do will enable you to enter the difference, feel affect, sense and live the methodological light/lightness and darkness differently, and access alternative spaces through unthought connections and different ways to work through and live realities of inquiry, methodologies, and qualitative relations. Still designs fail and continue with their hesitation.Provocation 1: Close your eyes and see. What methodologies become possible? I will wonder about the potential and possibility embedded in speculation and speculative practices in a methodological world where many worlds fit. Some of my thoughts today are prompted by the way I live and experience qualitative inquiry as a contemporary reflection, mirror, and actor in our complex and political global world. Many qualitative scholars are excited about opportunities related to experimentation, theoretical connections, onto-epistemological freedom, justice and ethical orientations research can offer. We have been inspired by the post, (new, feminist) materialisms, and more-than-human movements. We showed that qualitative research is needed, driven by practice, and can create different knowledges and knowledges differently. Recently, the field has also experienced ontological and relational turns paying more attention to ecologies of life and inquiry. However, some of my excitement has been tamed by artificial theoretical boundaries, conceptual regulations, standardized citation practices, overly descriptive guidelines, and other political ways to manage learning of qualitative inquiry and monitor experimentation processes. Occasionally I find myself mourning for more liberatory practices, worlds within worlds that stay open and welcoming in infinitum. Sometimes I feel saddened by the epistemological and ontological violence that we might have practiced against our community members, sisters, and brothers. It is also possible that I am late to the game, delayed in my reflections, dwelled in the past and we have already lived methodological pluriversity quite productively and practiced responsible collectivity for some time. However, I am truly inspired by visible and hidden potential, more inclusive vision and unthinkable hope for qualitative inquiry as a methodologically pluriverse community. This talk includes interrelated flows of relationality including speculative, experimentative, methodological, and plural flows. Speculation offers opportunities for creative imagination, hesitation, reflective questioning, and thinking with unthinkable futures. Experimentation reminds us that much of qualitative research is crafted in shifting practice, in artistic relations (Hannula et.al., 2014), and within different and internally creative and active time-space-matterings (Barad, 2007). Responsible methodologies and methodologists (see Kuntz, 2015) are needed while current methodological practices are radically re-visioned. Pluriversity and pluralism, in turn, are thoughtful choices toward more collective equity and ecological diversity. Finally, all of these relational flows ask for open-endedness and creative potentiality embedded in our ecological and relational onto-epistemological systems and practices. The flows come and go, relating and connecting logical and illogical ways while always creating alternative time-spaces. About experimentationSome years ago, I wrote about methodologies without methodologies, about methodological spaces without faces, names, and predetermined categories. I was interested in methodologies with inaccuracies and defects, abnormalities. At that time, my problem was the insufficiency of language, methodological non-imagination and inflexibility and my focus was on theoretical and methodological difference in infinitum. Now my breakdowns are more relational and material. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018) reminds us about a scary and lonely world without others, specter of difference, and the cruel and toxic identitarian politics. Now I see more clearly the vitality in pluralism, caring and sharing communities, and perceive the endless becoming of many. Worlds within worlds, methodologies within methodologies, researchers within researchers – in other words the multiplicity and methodological pluriverse are the worlds I want to talk about today. I also argue that for us to live the plural and many (also plural and many methodologies) we have to imagine. Qualitative inquiry is not a world without a difference and since its first visionaries and documented imaginations qualitative inquiries have been conceptualized as the other, multiple, and diversified. However, somewhere during the journey we may have lost our vision of this kind of relationality and collectivity. The paradigm and dialogue of difference can also be problematic since it is often guided by dualism and hierarchization leading toward methodological barricades, partition, ontological erasure, and epistemological colonialization. Furthermore, from the perspective/paradigm of difference one can also more easily locate and narrow down the ‘toxic methodological other’ simultaneously forming master subjects and methodological narratives. I think it is important to remember that perceived methodological differences are not natural but constructed. Provocation 2: Turn off the lights and sense the material you are sitting on. What methodologies become possible? If your momentary relationality to matter could speak, what might it say? In addition, I want to remind us about qualitative dreams, dreams of qualitative researchers, and the power of the unexpected. How might us, qualitative scholars, live our inquiries and allow more and infinite spaces for adventures of ideas and concepts created and crafted by scholars, surrounding materiality and all citizens of the entire world- not just the citizens of global North. For Whitehead (1967) adventures (of ideas) illustrate slow drifts of mankind toward betterment and civilization; a historical movement and adventures of framing the explanations influencing history. Not only the western history but the history of all humans (and non-humans). Adventures include a wide variety of mental experiences shaping human lives and their histories in diverse global contexts. Ideas also experience their own local histories. How do ideas arise and are infused, how ideas and concepts related and blend? How do ideas multiply in the infinite pluriverse? Furthermore, it is interesting to think with Whitehead also in the context of methodology. Methodological language has rarely been ‘correct’ and accurate and more importantly