An interactionist view of PhD development?

Back at work and back at the PhD this week. Task 1 was a response to the ethics peer review of my research proposal (which btw, has taken ages, and I'm nearly off timeline as a result). First look at the letter sent out resulted on cries of 'oh what?!...seriously?!...do they really need to ask that now? etc etc). However, a re-read helped me see that the comments were fairly minor on the whole, but fair enough to ask. The one that got me thinking was the one asking for more detail on the analysis. I guess it was fair enough to ask for more detail, but it felt...so far away. I have to admit, I wasn't quite sure about all the detail. I could tell you what sorts of things I was interested in looking at (after all, I'd nailed that in the initial proposal) but how I'd do it was another thing.

Asking the question prompted an answer I didn't know I had. Rather, I might have had it, but I didn't (yet) have the words for it. It made me think that the process of learning and inquiry in this PhD cannot be looked at as an individual one. Learning is prompted, drawn out, shaped and developed in response to other things. Perspectives develop in relation to other perspectives, to questions and so on. 

Rewind for a second; my study is a narrative study of professional identity. I'm getting people talking, through oral and visual narratives, about how they use all sorts of symbolic 'reference points' in their situations to build their narratives about themselves. When I was asked about what sort of analysis I would conduct then, I had to pause. I knew it would involve trying to understand how people 'worked' with or handled these reference points to build their narrative. I had to think (I know, is IS called for occasionally in the process). Clarity was needed, however; in my head I 'knew' what I wanted, but had never articulated it. The question brought out the thinking in narrative form. I needed to construct the narrative of my own research. 

Here are two options that I didn't go for, followed by the approach I do want to use:

• Conversational analysis. This sort of line by line study of the transcripts for me focuses on the internal structure of language but remain a little technical for me. 

• A grounded theoretical approach. You might think GT would be a contender for me, because my theoretical frame (symbolic interactionism) has roots in interactionism and can be related to forms of grounded theory. It need not be however. I tend to agree with Douglas Ezzy (2002) who suggests that grounded theory 'pulls apart' narratives (my words).

• A form of narrative analysis. Certain forms of narrative analysis appeal to me because they deal with narrative data in context, phrases in the context of the meaning intended by the participant. Within the 'family' of forms of analysis, I'm drawn to approaches that emphasise meaning; after all, a key focus of the study is on participants' 'sensemaking' they do in constructing their narratives. The work of philosopher Paul Ricoeur helps here, whose form of hermeneutic narrative analysis feels also focuses on meaning, for example through examining the process of 'enplotment' individuals use in constructing narrative meaning.

The PhD reloaded (apologies to Neo)

Summer has seen a dramatic slump in my blogging and Twitter efforts. Partly because we've been dragging our four children round London on holiday (dramatically close to Riots on a couple of days). During that time, I got my feedback from the ethical review process that scrutinised my PhD research proposal. On reflection, the comments are fine and I can deal with the amends, but feedback, any feedback takes you back. Perhaps it is because the PhD process is quite an isolated one, and the moments of dialogue can often be straight to the point! 

I have reached a 'end of year one' (part time) moment where it all seems a bit daunting. This is one of those points at which I have to just push on, because I'm not sure just how I'll read all that literature for example. I am aiming for a point at which I am able to articulate a perspective about my subject, but getting to that point calls for some confidence in putting it 'out there'. 

Most of the time this summer, I've been a tourist, however. Watching fish, sitting in Covent Garden, visiting friends and so on. I did manage to read a book (On the Other Hand, by Chris Cleave). Oh how I wish it was academic, but it was competing with a review of sociological theory. PhD fail.

Moving on. A better focus might be about what's interesting me. Here's a random list to give you an idea, but more importantly to kick me into thinking action:

• I've got some work to do on my research methods. Specifically, I'm planning to use a form of 'visual mapping' I've developed through my mentoring practice with early years leaders. It's one thing having a plan, but I need a dry run to see if this approach does help people construct their narratives of professional identity.
• I need to think a little more about symbolic objects. If this sounds strange, it's because in the theoretical perspective I'm using (an adapted form of symbolic interactionism) 'objects' are things recognised and named in our definition of the situation we're in. At the moment, I'm really interested in how individuals 'use' these objects in thinking about themselves. I'm thinking about 'objects' as sort of reference points for thinking about ourselves. 
• If I get it right I'll be able to relate these two points: I'd like a visual methodology that helps people to think about a) their symbolic reference points (objects) and; b) talk about what they mean to them and how they work with them.
• I think I need to work out just how I need to adapt 'classic' symbolic interactionist theory. To this point, I've looked at adaptations that allow me to consider a slightly more 'structural' versions which balance the consideration of the individual as 'agentic' (able to act) with consideration of factors that might shape that agency (issues such as power, role position etc).

 So, either this blog post has given you an insight into a particular stage of a part time PhD or it reads like a weird therapy session. At a minimum, it gives me a 'to do' list. Onwards, then.