Getting organised for a bigger research project

People who know me know that I like ideas, creativity and the process.
I want to throw myself into finding out. Problem is, it's like
decorating: I want to get the effect without sanding the wall. What
I'm thinking about here is doing the groundwork that will support my
research.

Here's a few questions:

- what's the best way the manage bibliographic information?
- how can I keep a track of my thinking and revisions to that thinking
as I go on?
- how do I relate ideas (and later on capture, present and analyse) findings?

OK, to most of us not a hot topic for a blog post: but as a note to
self, it's important, right?

Here's a few things I'm doing to 'tool up' for my PhD research. I will
add to it, but it's a start:

- I'm using del.ici.ous social bookmarks to capture and share up
information on the net.
- I'm checking out bibliographic software like endnote (thanks, Suzie
in the library service).
- I am checking out the bookshelf tool in Google Books
- I'm writing this blog (obviously)

BUT I've yet to find a good a good way of taking (and more importantly
managing) notes - on books, ideas, sketches. I know I could (gasp) use
real paper note books, but they are less good for managing, re
ordering and playing with connections between ideas. Perhaps Google
notes would work, but it's a product they've stopped supporting, so
I'm not keen to invest my eggs in that basket. What about One note? :
evil Microsoft software based solution.

I need a web based portfolio that lets me throw in sketches, photos,
traditional notes, audio recordings and more.

Any ideas?

Getting myself a practical theory?

The thing about theory is - it's a simplification of reality. It's a way of describing and working with complexity so that it begins to be possible to understand it, to analyse it and to use it to explain. I know the reality of working in children's services (like any work environment) is complex, so I'm striving to hit the right balance between oversimplification (on one hand) and 'fancy theory' on the other hand, which is about ego and impressing people. I've always been about application, so although I want to better understand how people's identity and practices changes as they work with others, it has to be usable and rooted in reality.

I guess it's naive to expect that I will begin my PhD journey with a polished theoretical framework - although it's tempting in one respect, the learning is in the journey and the (doubtless many) revisions to my thinking along the way. This is a vulnerable process, because it challenges me to truly reject the basis of 'expert knowledge'. Simply saying I'm learning new things, as this blog does, admits that. In my professional academic world, however, people like 'experts'. I'm just saying we all are on a journey - I know life is about more than me.

An enjoyable part of my journey has been finding theory that addresses concerns I have about the limitation of theories I've found so far - but don't quite 'capture it'. If you've been reading this blog, you might remember that my 'base camp' has been in the pragmatist / interactionist / interpretive world of Mead, Blumer et al. I liked the recognition of individual agency (our perceptions, choices and actions are important) but I also felt that I wanted to develop a perspective that also recognised the role of the context beyond purely the subjective. I valued Polyani's perspective which held in tension the subjective and personal with objective reality. I know being 'objective' is not academically fashionable, but never mind. Along those lines, I've found Gidden's theory of structuration (1979) and Bourdieu's theory of practice (1972) both a way of moving in that direction without ditching what I've picked up so far. How satisfying.

So, to go back to a previous post, I though it would be entirely fitting to provide you with a couple of (very rough) pages from my notebook which capture a few points which I think will prove useful as I work this theoretical frame up.

Getting research assumptions on the table

OK, perhaps I should be actually reading those books I’ve picked out instead of blogging, but for now it’s useful in clearing my head. As I’ve said before, at this stage I’m ‘clearing the decks’ so to speak, and orientating myself. I can see a time quite soon where I’ll need to plan for a decent literature search: but to do that I need some criteria. That’s where the blog comes in.

Firstly, I wonder if it will help me to generate a list of assumptions. These might prove interesting to see whether they bear theoretical weight. My first assumption / belief is that individuals’ sense of themselves changes as they work alongside others, as does the way they act. I’m basing this on material I’ve read (some of Jillian Rodd’s research with early childhood leaders still is relevant) and my own experience. My own experience is of experiencing significant transitions working in community projects, charities, local authorities, Sure Start, running my own consultancy and most recently in higher education as a senior lecturer – both the contexts and the people have shaped how I saw who I was and have changed what and how I work. This is not to say I have not had consistent ‘threads’ in my own identity and practice (I certainly have) but I can note the shifts. The second part of my own experience comes from supporting the development of others: volunteers, staff I have supervised and part time professional students in the children’s workforce. In particular, my role as a team member in the excellent National Professional Qualification in Integrated Centre Leadership (NPQICL) have allowed me the privilege of supporting and mentoring many leaders who themselves have reflected on their own ‘journey into leadership’.

Secondly, I think that change happens on several different levels, with each working together to affect change. This can range from conscious, rational thought (perhaps focused by a reaction to a critical incident or from structured reflection for example) to subconscious, incremental change. In fact, I’d like to think that people change through a process of what could be called incremental adaptation – in other words, as we interact with our professional environments, we seek a balance between our own needs and values and the behaviour required to perform our role. In my experience, I’ve been privileged to work in roles that have allowed me to align my beliefs, values with behaviour and actions required or compatible in the role. In fact, it’s the principal driver for my selection of role. That’s what you get for starting off working with churches and community organisations.

Thirdly, I believe that anyone can identify even subtle changes to the way they see themselves and how they perform their role(s) is supported in the right ways. I’m a passionate believer in people development and in the value of structured reflection. For me, it might be talking with my colleagues or my wife or by praying, journaling ...or blogging at the moment!. Most people freeze at the thought of talking eloquently about the development of their ‘inner selves’ – and perhaps rightly so, but if asked the right question, given the right tools and environment: people can identify what’s going on for them. If I did not believe this, I would be foolish to attempt research with individuals and professional communities in the very real and down to earth world of early years settings. This is why I think getting the methodology and methods right will be so important, amongst all the other elements.

There you go – there will be more than three, but it’s a start.

what does your research say about you?

Early days in planning PhD research are those that are not bogged down in the day to day practical difficulties of sifting, noting, cataloging, transcribing, writing and so on. I'm guessing it's during this time I can think slightly 'bigger picture'. So far, I've been thinking about the utility of ideas - what perspectives or ideas may be useful: but doing that has highlighted something quite important for me, which is can (and should) my research reflect my beliefs and values?

Before I delve any deeper, let's get real. We all select and interpret perspectives that tend to match our values and beliefs. Of course, critically speaking this can be both good and bad, but we have all read material which is 'OK' - perhaps technically correct, perhaps even makes a few relevant points - but is 'safe', never questioning in any way which makes us take notice, nod our head or even shout at the page in disagreement. It's boring and lifeless. Many of us also know that our best work flows from our passions, convictions and genuine questions. If we're not interested, readers certainly won't be. 

As I've begun to introduce myself to some potentially relevant perspectives (see my mind map in a previous post as an imperfect example) I've had the nagging feeling that they don't yet fully reflect what I feel passionate about. In fact, my own experience tells me that many (most?) of us are not simply rational decision making machines when it comes to how we do what we do at work. Whilst I like what symbolic interactionsm has got to bring (see previous posts for a very short intro), its value for me is in shedding light on how we construct our professional 'selves': but for me, I'm wondering whether this seemingly 'rational' worldview fails to capture the emotion, spirituality and genuine 'randomness' of life as it interacts with us? 

I'm beginning to think that my relationship with theory needs to be held lightly, especially as I've got so much 'mapping out' to do. I had a helpful conversation with one of my academic colleagues (who is sickeningly clever and creative) who suggested that I reflect on principles, not necessarily the detail of all of these theories. This is helpful to me. If, as I suspect, I am constructing a bit of a 'hybrid' theoretical framework, there will be tensions and limitations (such as those presented by the rationality of pragmatism, or the poor empirical basis for psychoanalysis...is this fair?). Pulling out those principles is for another post, but for now I remain committed to a messy picture, not yet formed, which retains a sense of real enquiry, interest and ownership - not the 'safe' or 'correct' approach that pins all hopes on one single dogmatic theory.

How do interactions with others change 'how we do things'?

As I've said before, early stages of this blog are useful for playing around with the questions that I need to shape up. If you remember, I'm interested in how people working in multi professional children's services (like Sure Start Children's Centres, Family Centres or other community projects) change as a result of working with other people from different professional backgrounds. So far, I've noted my interest in pragmatist thinking, which emphasises the importance of interactions (to over simplify things).

Today, I'm thinking about how those interactions actually translate into changed practice. I suspect it's a complex and nuanced process, dependant on lots of variables. It better be, or it'll be a short PhD thesis. Seriously though, we all 'rub up' against all sorts of people every day who think and act in a whole range of ways that are 'different' to us. However, every conversation or interaction does not instantly affect us deeply, causing us to reevaluate our reason for being and doing. We filter, we match experiences up against pre existing beliefs, we use perspectives to determine what's significant. All of that is fascinating, and reflects my own view that we're not simply reacting (animal like) to our circumstances, in the traditional behaviourist style of Skinner, Watson et al. 

It's the interaction of self with other 'social objects' including people, ideas, symbols and so on that may well be fascinating. I know my own experience, and the experience of dozens of professionals in the children's services sector I lecture and mentor is that the process or experience of working with others can be very powerful, unsettling, inspiring ...you name it.