Just like in a blink of a flash, poof, it is complete, done, and nearly finished.

This has been an amazing journey, as I have discovered so much about research methods and more about myself. I applaud each of you on a job well done and wish you nothing but the absolute best to come. I leave you now with my lighting slides to share with you later in the day. Blessings.

HalleuYah! Praise Ye, The Lord! On this Thankful Thursday, There Are No Questions; I have so much to Thank God for. As the Bible says, “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28, NKJV). Thank God, I’ve been called for His purpose. He knows how much I love Him. Thus often work all things together for my good. These God winks are blowing my mind. Besides, Ain’t Nobody Mad But The Devil. Not you. Not me. Not us. Just the father of lies.

Okay, now that I’ve got that out of my system, as Computers in Human Behavior:  When students want to stand out: Discourse moves in online classroom discussion that reflect students’ needs for distinctiveness (Yu et al., May 2016) states, “We wanted to extend the ideas of uniqueness-seeking and optimal distinctiveness to explore how graduate students interact collaboratively in the dialogic process of online discussion with two guided questions” (p. 3). I decided, as often, to utilize some research skills to answer the questions.

Therefore, I discovered when it comes to students’ uniqueness-seeking needs that relate to the different discourse moves they exhibit in an online discussion, I found simple examples to help me better understand this theory. For example, let us consider this cute example from a third-grade classroom relating to knowledge-focused sharing time in practice. The Teacher, Mr. Levia (all names are pseudonyms), is facilitating sharing as part of the class’s morning meeting routine. He has communicated with the families when each student will have their “sharing day” for the quarter, and how to prepare at home by selecting a topic and artifact, then practicing sharing. The student of the day, Tara, has brought in a circuitry set from home. Tara’s mom is an electrician, and Tara enjoys creating electronic devices with her mom’s help and experimenting on her own. Tara shares the circuitry kit, explaining some of the things she has built and demonstrating a small circuit that lights up a light bulb.

Tara: So, you connect the wire here, and it completes the circuit.

Mr. Levia: Interesting, Tara. How do you know the circuit is complete?

Tara: Look, I can flip the switch and the light bulb comes on! [Classmates exclaim with excitement.] If the circuit wasn’t complete, the…um…current…wouldn’t flow to the light. So, if the light didn’t come on, I know the circuit isn’t complete.

Juliana: Like our Christmas lights!

Tara: Yes, it’s the same thing as with Christmas lights. It’s a circuit. That’s why if one of the Christmas lights isn’t connected, the lights won’t turn on.

Mr. Levia: Can you tell us about some other things you can build with your circuitry kit?

Tara: I built a doorbell one time. My mom’s going to help me build some more things.

Mr. Levia: What questions or comments do you have for Tara?

[Several students raise hands.]

Tara: Ummm…. Christopher.

Christopher: My papa has some stuff like that. He built a radio!

Tara: I think I can build a radio too….

Christopher: I think you need a different kind of battery, like the bigger one.

Tara: [shrugs] I have some different kinds of batteries at home. These are double-A batteries, but I also have D batteries; those are the big ones. And the button batteries, too, are the small, round ones.

The discussion continues as students engage in an authentic conversation about the circuits, where Tara is using her emerging knowledge to provide information and explain processes, her third-grade peers are asking genuine questions to clarify understanding or seek more information, and the whole class is co-constructing shared knowledge about the topic of electricity. The engaging discourse relates to the NGSS third-grade standard 3-PS2-3, which involves asking questions to determine cause-and-effect relationships involving electronic interactions. The class has practiced this discourse routine daily since the beginning of the school year, so the students have good norms for discussion and continue on their own while their teacher steps back (Wiley & Sons, 1999-2024). So sweet and simple to me. Sometimes, the simplest examples assist with my comprehension.

In addition to more comprehensive assignments and lessons, teachers can build short, entertaining activities that keep students engaged and reveal insights about who they are. We can, too, consider having fun, icebreakers, games, and accolades (so much of what we’ve done within our class session) as a comparison of discourse moves and feelings about the online discussion (enjoyment and engagement) across the semester reveal about students with different uniqueness-seeking needs.

Trevor Boffone, a high school teacher in Texas, asked his students to submit their favorite song to a list at the start of the year. Now, at the beginning of each virtual class, he plays music to kick things off, incorporating students’ picks and his own. Throughout remote learning, Cathleen Beachboard, a middle school teacher in Virginia, says she’s including fun activities like show-and-tells and theme days. This fall, she also adopted a practice that her superintendent uses for staff meetings called “Three Cool Things I’ve Seen.” Once a week, Beachboard calls out three things she’s observed about students from classes that week that recognize them for their individuality.

“I know a lot of teachers are struggling right now to pull students in. I found the more encouragement and authentic praise we give to students, the more they dive in,” she said. These are scary times, but by giving students time to showcase their individuality, they will feel safe and ready to fully engage in learning” (Edutopia, George Lucas Educational Foundation 2024). I could not agree more.

Moving on, I’m grateful that my research project is nearly complete, building upon what we shared during our last class session; I hope my paper is coherent, well-organized, and very informative. Although I think I did a nice job of incorporating various theorists and applying their ideas to the phenomenon of autoethnography. I, too, am not sure if I’ve done a good job of a feasible question topic and introducing relevant details to substantiate my position.

I think I may need to give more attention to how autoethnography fits into my research proposal. However, I still have a bit more research to do in putting my literature review together. I know I will do an effective job of explaining the theory once I have completed proper research in the library.

When my research proposal is fully developed and complete, I beleive it will be a helpful device to all who embrace it. Overall, with all the essential assistance included, I think I may have a very strong proposal that will fulfill the parameters of this assignment quite well.

Yes, It’s True. When an unanticipated ER visit over the weekend interrupts your assignment flow, you discover something new. In other words, did you know that Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple by Bondarouk and Ruel ties into (aligns with) medicine as Discourse Analysis is a useful methodology for healthcare system research? Well, according to an article written in the National Library of Medicine, as interesting as it might be, I uncovered some detailed information alluding to said matter, such as:

Discourse analysis (DA) is an interdisciplinary field of inquiry and is becoming an increasingly popular research strategy for researchers in various disciplines, which healthcare researchers have little employed. The methodology involves a focus on the sociocultural and political context in which text and talk occur. DA adds a linguistic approach to an understanding of the relationship between language and ideology, exploring the way in which theories of reality and relations of power are encoded in such aspects as the syntax, style, and rhetorical devices used in texts. DA is a useful and productive qualitative methodology but has been underutilized within healthcare system research. Without a clear understanding of discourse theory and DA it is difficult to comprehend important research findings and impossible to use DA as a research strategy. To redress this deficiency, this article represents an introduction to concepts of discourse and DA, DA history, Philosophical background, DA types and analysis strategy. Finally, it discusses how it affects the ideological dimension of such phenomena discourse in the healthcare system, health beliefs and intra-disciplinary relationships in the healthcare system.

For at least three years now, “discourse” and “discourse analysis (DA)” have been fashionable terms. Usually, in scientific research and debates, it is used indiscriminately without being defined. Without a clear understanding of discourse theory and DA, it is difficult to comprehend important research findings and impossible to use DA as a research strategy. Hence, the article aims to help healthcare practitioners employ DA as an effective research strategy.

There are many explanations and definitions of discourse and DA. Discourse has been defined as “a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be identified in textual and verbal communications, and can also be located in wider social structures.” In other definition “discourse is a belief, practice or knowledge that constructs reality and provides a shared way of understanding the world.” In a broad sense, discourses are defined as systems of meaning that are related to the interactional and wider sociocultural context and operate regardless of the speakers’ intentions. DA is a broad and diverse field, including a variety of approaches to the study of language, which derive from different scientific disciplines and utilize various analytical. DA examines language in use. As suggested by Fairclough, “Discourse is the use of language as a form of social practice, and DA is an analysis of how texts work within the sociocultural practice.” DA focuses on the ways that language and symbols shape interpretations of negotiators’ identities, instrumental activity, and relationships.

DA is both an old and a new discipline. Historically, DA path a way from linguistic approaches to socialistic approaches. Its origins can be traced back to the study of language, public speech, and literature more than 2000 years ago. One major historical source is undoubtedly classical rhetoric, the art of good speaking. Then, A new cross-discipline of DA began to develop in most of the humanities and social sciences concurrently with and related to other disciplines, like anthropology, semiology, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Many of these approaches, especially those influenced by the social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of oral talk-in-interaction. 

Mainly, DA’s philosophical base is a social constructionist approach. Social constructionism is an umbrella term for a range of new theories about culture and society. DA is just one among several social constructionist approaches, but it is one of the most widely used approaches within social constructionism.

Social linguistic analysis is constructivist and focuses on individual texts. It gives insight into the organization and construction of these texts and how they work to construct and organize other phenomena. The focus is not on the exploration of the power dynamics in which the texts are implicated.

Similar to social linguistic analysis, these discourse analyses are interested in the way in which broader discursive contexts come into being. They are not directly concerned with power. Individual texts are more important as background material.

Critical linguistic analysis shares with social linguistic analysis its focus on individual texts, but its main concern is the dynamics of power surrounding the text. Examining individual texts is for understanding how the structures of domination of the proximal context are implicated in the text.

Discursive psychology is part of the general movement of critical psychology, which has been reacting against mainstream social psychology, especially the sort of experimental psychology. The aim of discursive psychologists is not so much to analyze the changes in society’s “large-scale discourses,” which concrete language use can bring about, as to investigate how people use the available discourses flexibly in creating and negotiating representations of the world and identities in talk-in-interaction and to analyze the social consequences of this.

DA, as a qualitative approach, has an important role in the healthcare system because the healthcare system needs to be knowledgeable across the multiple paradigms and perspectives that inform an understanding of the biological, psychological, social, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions of human lives. Practice in this area is a political, cultural, and social practice and needs to be understood as such to improve the quality of care provided. Effective clinical reasoning relies on employing several different kinds of knowledge and research that draw on different perspectives, methodologies, and techniques to generate the breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding of clinical practices and patients’ experiences of those practices. DA can contribute to the development of this knowledge (Yazdannik, Yousefy, Mohammadi, 2017) and so on. Thanks Everyone!

UGH! . . . I didn’t think I would find myself under the weather again this week. But I am. The weather has no doubt taken a toll on my fragile body. Nonetheless, the show must go on. Thus, these are my brief takeaways aligned with last week’s class discussion: A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated by Thomas Groenewald and yet focused on my Research Proposal.

In the context of this ideological crisis, the German philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859 – 1938) “sought to develop a new philosophical method which would lend absolute certainty to a disintegrating civilization.” That is such an interesting advantage point for this German philosopher to believe that another philosophical method would lead researchers everywhere in the right direction. “Although the origins of phenomenology can be traced back to Kant and Hegel, Vandenberg regards Husserl as “the fountainhead of phenomenology in the twentieth century.” Well, now, although Edmund Husserl was the principal founder of phenomenology—and thus one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, making important contributions to almost all areas of philosophy and anticipated central ideas of its neighboring disciplines such as linguistics, sociology and cognitive psychology; it seems like we have some, maybe at least two good founding philosophers who brought this intriguing method to the forefront as well. But then, what do I know?

Husserl rejected the belief that objects in the external world exist independently and that the information about objects is reliable. He argued that people can be certain about how things appear in, or present themselves to, their consciousness. Such as the following list:

1. Life and work

2. Pure logic, meaning, intuitive fulfillment and intentionality

3. Indexicality and propositional content

4. Singularity, consciousness and horizon-intentionality

5. The phenomenological epoché

6. Epoché, perceptual noema, hýle, time-consciousness and phenomenological reduction

7. Passivity vs. activity

8. Communication, sociality, personhood and personal values

9. Empathy, intersubjectivity and lifeworld; ethics and value theory

10. The intersubjective constitution of objectivity and the case for “transcendental idealism”

I like this knowledge to the degree that “To arrive at certainty, anything outside immediate experience must be ignored, and in this way, the external world is reduced to the contents of personal consciousness. Realities are thus treated as pure ‘phenomena’ and the only absolute data from where to begin. Husserl named his philosophical method ‘phenomenology, ‘the science of pure ‘phenomena.’ However, what does it all mean? The text says, “The aim of phenomenology is the return to the concrete, captured by the slogan ‘Back to the things themselves!'”. (Introduction). Moreover, I surely need a bit more clarity as I wait patiently for the next lead discussion to impart additional knowledge on the matter.

Hmm. . . I guess after further reading (reading on) addresses my concerns like “However, by 1970, phenomenology “had not yet established itself as a viable alternative to the traditional natural scientific approach in psychological research.” The reason, according to Giorgi (as cited in Stones), was that a phenomenological praxis, a systematic and sustained way, had not yet been developed. In this regard, it was remarked that after phenomenology flourished, “during the first twenty years after the Second World War, this approach was forgotten for a while.” However, in the 1970s, phenomenological psychologists established a praxis, which is a methodological realization of the phenomenological philosophical attitude.” Okay, I think I can follow a little the knowledge here a bit more. Conversely, I still cannot wait to receive more clarity.

I, too, find this passage to be a good rule of thumb for researchers to follow: “A good research undertaking starts with the selection of the topic, problem or area of interest, as well as the paradigm. Stanage (1987) traced ‘paradigm’ back to its Greek (paradeigma) and Latin origins (paradigma), meaning pattern, model, for example. A paradigm is the patterning of the thinking of a person; it is a principal example among examples, an exemplar or model to follow according to which design actions are taken. Differently stated, a paradigm is an action of submitting to a view. This view is supported by Denzin and Lincoln, who define a research paradigm as “a basic set of beliefs that guide action,” dealing with first principles, ‘ultimates’ or the researcher’s worldviews.” I bet it might be mentioned in the lead discussion. At least, I hope so. Moving on to the last few takeaways, it also provides great design insight for some of us novice researchers.

[Write down your viewpoint, perspectives or feelings about the program you are undergoing or have completed. You need not give your name. You need not concern yourself with grammar or spelling. If possible, compare this program with others you may have done which are not offered through a collaboration between an employer and an educational institution (or compare this program with pure academic programs known to you from talking to other students). The three data-gathering methods—unstructured in-depth phenomenological interviews, memoing, and essays—will be explained first, followed by the data storage.]

In conclusion, there is not more I can add to the validity and truthfulness other than what has been concluded: The composite summary above only reflects the themes that are common to most or all of the interviews. However, individual variations or unique themes are just as important as commonalities with regard to the phenomenon researched. The study undertaken reveals that the logistical organization and coordination of joint ventures between educational institutions and enterprises are very important factors in growing talent. That is it. That is all for now.

A Research-Based Approach to Game Writing Pedagogy by Seth Andrew Hudson, PhD, seems to be the easier research theory to comprehend. Thus, I am eagerly excited to learn more about the theory in the lead discussion this week, and I’m saving some time to research and write the Research Proposal.

For instance, “There is nothing like game writing” captures the common sentiment of these texts as Wendy Despain frames her edited collection on writing for video game genres, which appears to be an industry-veteran authors’ alternative to “drowning our sorrows and crying in their beer.” It also looks like “statements like this signify the limitation of relying on these trade press publications as a scholarly assessment of the field” (94). In other words, the thinkable ways to consider writing with video games would be a thing for future generational use as a similar school of thought relating to Notes From a Writer’s Desk: Gamifying Research and Writing:

————

The object of gamification is to utilize game elements, including gameplay mechanics and structure, point scoring, competition, and prizes, to encourage certain behaviors. Companies often use Gamification to encourage consumer engagement with products. Frequent flier miles are a great example, as accruing points through repeated use of an airline can result in rewards like free flights or upgrades. Another noteworthy example is the system of achievements embedded in many video games. These achievements may be tied to core missions or game mechanics or associated with arbitrary tasks available in the normal course of the game, and they often reward the player with a score, digitally tangible badge, or in-game trinket.

We can utilize similar models to mask the “work” aspect of our research and writing by associating it with something fun, motivating, or rewarding. Graduate Student of Harvard School of Arts and Science Anthony Shannon proclaims how he used an achievement system towards the end of my dissertation work. His favorite arbitrary dissertation achievement was for his bibliography to have authors representing every letter in the alphabet, which he achieved thanks to an article on doubled divinities in the Phoenician world by Paolo Xella.

Recently, he led a workshop called “Gamifying the Dissertation,” where he presented ideas on gamifying research and writing. Anthony offered some basic examples of the do-it-yourself (DIY) approach that students could develop on their own or with a group of friends or colleagues, including:

Create a points system.

You can motivate yourself to write by assigning values to aspects of your writing, such as word count or time spent writing. You can track points at week or month intervals and try to set a high score. Alternatively, you can collect points and exchange them for rewards, like a weekend trip, a date with your significant other, purchasing a coat, or going to Costco. A points system is a fun way to categorize larger projects into smaller, more manageable chunks and to reward yourself for each step of the process. You can also share it with your friends and compete for rewards, or even recruit friends and family to supply rewards for you to strive toward.

Create your own game.

If you are interested in something more complex, you can create your own game centered around your research and writing habits. For example, you could create a list of enemies that require a certain amount of XP to defeat, which you can earn by completing certain research or writing tasks. You can introduce randomness by using cards or dice to determine the XP required to defeat an enemy or the amount of XP awarded per task. This can also be a group accountability activity, with each member responsible for gaining enough XP to defeat enemies collaboratively.

Workshop attendees brainstormed ideas for gamifying their work and for designing a useful system for students from different disciplines. They also raised interesting questions about gamification, including what can be considered an incentive—is ice cream an incentive, a motivator, or both?—and how to keep gamification from consuming us and hindering progress, thus defeating its purpose. One way to potentially avoid this pitfall is to use a ready-made platform for habit and writing tracking, such as:

Chore Wars

It is modeled after Dungeons and Dragons-type RPGs. It uses a dungeon master who assembles a player party and designs a campaign of pre-made or custom tasks that reward XP.

Habitica

Allows you to specify your tasks, level of difficulty, and rewards. Its user-friendly interface reminds me of a gamified version of Trello and other similar task managers.

4thewords

The Combat-RPG concept is aimed at writing, with a focus on word count that translates into XP needed to defeat a series of monsters on your quest.

Beeminder

Uses monetary incentives, allowing you to place bets on yourself to accomplish your goals. If you don’t meet your goals within certain parameters or with a certain consistency, you pay up.

Write or Die

Uses a variety of incentives in its three different base modes: Stimulus, which encourages focus and productivity by changing the audio-visual elements of the interface; Consequence, which punishes you with alarm noises and images of spiders; and Reward, which treats you to pleasant sounds and images like kittens and puppies. For real risk-takers, there is also Kamikaze mode, which will start deleting your work if you don’t meet your goals.

Written? Kitten!

On this free platform, you can set your word goal intervals (100, 200, 500, 1000 words), and at each interval, you are rewarded with a picture of a kitten, puppy, or bunny.

750words

You will receive points for participating each day and for writing 750 words each day. You can also compete with others on monthly challenge leaderboards.

Fighter’s Block

This is a more active writing catalyst that pits you against a monster who drains your health over time and can only be defeated by meeting your self-imposed word goal.

Anthony concludes that there are many options available for those interested in gamifying their research and writing habits (The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2024). Conversely, any existing gaps in communication between the game industry and higher education should not serve as an excuse to retreat to our respective bases of understanding. Rather, those gaps are indicative of an opportunity for researchers to engage with a new field that represents a convergence of technology, art, storytelling, and interactivity in the digital age. Deployed in pedagogy, those efforts will certainly benefit the students we seek to serve and our field of study; they may also innovate the medium itself. (Husdon, p. 110). Selah.

Because I have only been able to take two days off during this Spring Break season, as most caring Mothers may agree, when you make a promise to your child, very rarely do you wish to break it (refuse to do so and disappoint them). Therefore, I chose to engage in a very simple response. Not to mention, I, too, began feeling ill (under extreme weather) just before returning to campus. Then scheduled to see various specialists/testing during and immediately after the Break. What an unexpected journey for me. I have often stated to my sis-in-law, “Aging is a Beast,” and my body has not proved otherwise. So, in other words, this Blog Post reflects upon others’ responses to Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee’s The Qualitative Report of Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences Article 2 that I hope you find intriguing. . . Life goes on and I’m grateful to yet be among the living.

When asked, What is the difference between the qualitative analyses of contents and the ground theory? I, like most, in short, understand that the two methods are similar, but I also have a problem showing the differences between them. Thus, let’s see how others respond to what you think in the field and study of research.

I know that these two methods are similar, but I have a problem showing the differences between them, says Poorandokht Afshari, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. The question of what is or is not grounded theory is a difficult one, because you can’t call just anything grounded theory. Still, it is also problematic to draw a tight boundary around a single definition. I would thus suggest that there is a strong “family resemblance” among the major forms of grounded theory, of which the three best-known versions are the ones associated with Strauss & Corbin, Glaser, and Charmaz. (I think that Charmaz’s Book, Constructing Grounded Theory, is the most useful introduction to the method.) One element in all three is that you should not begin with strong prior theoretical assumptions but rather build the theory from your ongoing observations. In contrast, content analysis may or may not involve a prior theory and counting (which you would never find in grounded theory). This reflects differences between the more quantitative approaches to content analysis and what is called “qualitative content analysis.” A good source of information about qualitative approaches to content analysis is Mayring’s recent online textbook.

Grounded theory differs from either qualitative content analysis or thematic analysis because it has its own distinctive set of procedures, including theoretical sampling and open coding. In contrast, the procedures in the other two are not specified at the same level of detail chimes in David L Morgan of Portland State University.

Thomas Felke from Florida Gulf Coast University believes many argue that the differences between content analysis (itself a varied concept) and grounded theory are minimal. The basic difference that most point out is that grounded theory analysis is conducted using an existing theory as a basis for the analysis. For example, a researcher examining stigma among certain vulnerable populations might use Erving Goffman’s work “Stigma” as a starting point for their analysis. This article might help you see the differences between qualitative approaches. As I mentioned, content analysis has varied approaches within itself. This article may alsp help to show some of the types.

Differences? Indeed, not all content analysis builds grounded theory, and one can build a grounded theory using multiple methods that do not include content analysis. The analogy is this:  You can use bricks to build a house, but you can use bricks to build things other than houses, such as schools and office buildings, and you can use materials other than bricks to build a house, such as stone or wood.  Because a researcher uses one to build the other, I do not see the obvious confusion Lynne Webb at Florida International University brings to the table.

Qualitative Analyses can be of many types depending upon the kind of research questions that your research aims to answer – content analysis, discourse analysis, phenomenological analysis. Likewise, grounded theory is one of the kinds of data analysis aimed at building an indigenous theory. Most of the time, GT includes thematic analysis. Still, it does not stop there. It goes on to make one theme a central theme around which other themes revolve and interact to build a theory, states Muhammad Usman Amin Siddiqi of Oregon State University.

Similar to the five specifics of responses selected, I occur, “A researcher should be sensitive to these characteristics as she or he selects a research method” (Cho, Lee, p. 17). Therefore, in conclusion, in conjunction with the various other responses, I am sure the assigned paper assists novice and inexperienced researchers and students like me in selecting research methods appropriate for their studies and provides insights for qualitative researchers. Sincere Thank you to my son, Boss, professors and cohorts who have shown a great deal of care and compassion towards me.

Okay, it has happened. Yes, I candidly admit this specific reading assignment has me completely stunned with a lack of understanding. The theoretical jargon is so profound I could not fully grasp what I extracted from Literacy Networks: Following the Circulation of Texts, Bodies, and Objects in the Schooling and Online Gaming of One Youth by Kevin M. Leander and Jason F. Lovvorn. Except maybe this reading has something to do with gaming as a useful research tool. I am also looking forward to the lead discussion, which will bring total simplicity and clarification to me.

The ways in which individuals conceive of the relationship of literacy to space–time, I hope, is, too, simply defined in physics as any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur. If that is the case, then it makes sense, “Although reading and writing are often conceptualized and examined as social and cognitive processes independent from other activities, many reading and writing practices are interwoven with other forms of activity” (292). Thus, it would make sense to attempt to introduce new concepts in education. Then again, I could be all so wrong about this.

Subsequently, I guess we can consider that “researchers are in need of moral means of making distinctions among literacy practices and their relations to space–time” (292). A balance of science and research appears to be in question when it comes to literacy practices and space-time. For “construct has been conceived in various ways. “Strong-text” theorists provide descriptions of the underlying principles, one might say, the tools by which they attempt to understand literature, such as the mentioned theorists, who argued that texts enable the literate to break free from the limits of space and time. Sounds like breaking bonds and ties in that “the development of literacy of this perspective assumes an understanding of texts (and of the literate self) as detached from social context” (294), also sounds far above my reasonable comprehension.

This is groundbreaking news to me: “ANT, developed within the broad area of science and technology studies, has begun to influence work in social psychology, geography, medical sociology, management, economics, and other areas of the social sciences” (295). I have read this account repeatedly, and I still cannot clench the entire meaning of ANT. Please don’t fault me. This is a complex read. However, I find this part of the reading agreeable, “Although it is relatively easy to imagine the connections within any given social–literacy–technical practice, the logic of translation processes is not nearly so apparent” (300). Let the church say Amen because it is surely not easy for me to imagine the connections. But thank goodness, Latour wrote that ANT, as a “theory of translation,” is essentially a theory of metaphor, where one thing means something else” (300). Here, I believe I have discovered a better understanding of ANT.

Then comes Brian’s participation in schooling and gaming, which obviously involves a complex array of practices and could be compared along many dimensions. Moreover, it is clear from the reading that analysis and discussion intend not to provide an exhaustive account but rather to draw together the two central arguments of the article (329). Thus, this concept yet leaves me with the question: what/who exactly is Brian? In the end, I get the jest of what is being said: that classrooms and game worlds are not dull and unmotivating merely because they are filled with unmotivated people. They are unmotivating because they are immobile. (336). In other words, they are motionless, unable to move. The end.

There are surely a lot of do’s and don’ts to take away from Case Study Lin. Furthermore, I pride myself on what I learned thus far from some amazing past professors who I believe have taught me well. I am grateful to Dr. Kim-Le Downes, Dr. Dean Casale, and Dr. Samina Ali for having been very instrumental in assisting me and not taking neglectful Lin steps in UNDERSTANDING THE GENRE FEATURES OF QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: A CASE STUDY By Yi-Huey Guo. Case and Point:

Introduction from the beginning: “Some Asian researchers consider the time-consuming and labor-intensive process of qualitative research writing to be the factors discouraging them from doing it” (p. 115). Well, this is surprising news. I had no idea what some Asian researchers thought about qualitative research with negative connotations. That goes to show how different cultures think as A, B, C, 1, 2, 3.

Writing Qualitatively as a Genre: “Qualitative researchers collect data and analyze it to understand existing realities better” (117). This is such an interesting concept to follow. A good step in collecting data and analyzing findings to understand better and receive optimum results. I surely took the stage in great consideration and when I begin my incredible research process in the past.

The Multifaceted Nature of Qualitative Research Writing: “Some students struggle with the identification of “salient features” (117), which Dr. Roman-Lantzy defines salient features as, “the defining elements that distinguish one target from another.” She continues, “They are key pieces of distinct information that facilitate recognition of an image, object, environment, or person.” She has developed an approach to teach people with CVI to recognize distinctive information about something in order to be able to identify it.  As such, there is no single “right” salient feature for something, and this will be based on the individual.  For example, my child may have a cup with a handle, and that handle might be the salient feature for her.  Another child may have a sippy cup, and that spout may be a distinctive feature for him.  Each person is drawn to specific information about something, depending on interests, needs, strengths, and circumstances” (Paths To Literacy, 2024). This example does seem to coincide quite clearly with the multifaceted nature of qualitative research writing to take under deliberation.

Research Method: “What not to do in following Lin. The objective is to understand whether or not learning qualitative research as a research method could suffice a novice’s writing of it” (118). Here’s a great starting point as to what not to do in following Lin. Slowing down and taking time to weigh the possibilities of whether qualitative research is a good method for a novice researcher to choose or rule it out for research writing purposes.

With The Discussion: “Lin’s case shows that teaching qualitative research merely as a research method may result in a novice’s unawareness of “rhetorical situations” in the writing process” (122). To mean, The rhetorical situation can be described in five parts: purpose, audience, topic, writer, and context. These parts work together to describe better the circumstances and contexts of a piece of writing, which, if understood properly, can help you make smart writing choices in your work. Thus, Treating Lin’s qualitative research writing as a genre practice may also assist other novice researchers in interpretive writing of the epistemological elements.

Conclusion: Indeed, To sum up, first, there is a need to teach a qualitative research method course as a specific genre to qualitative novices like Lin, who not only had limited interpretative writing skills but were immersed in a research community where doing qualitative research received less support (124). For future research, this study suggests researchers highlight the students’ practice of each aforementioned qualitative genre element for further investigation: DON’T BE A LIN.

Instead, let’s attempt to improve further was made to make accurate use of collected writing samples as data. Unfortunately, even after Lin later submitted his second draft, he still left the part of the data analysis procedure unrevised. With his second draft, he wrote something different instead. According to him, he searched several published full-length research articles for extensive reading in addition to the sample his advisor attached (120). Howbeit, this attempt did not work as effectively as he expected because the case study gives clarity that Lin did not carry out the advisor’s input.

Reaction (click to read).

Alec J. Grant and Laetitia Zeeman’s: Whose Story Is It? An Autoethnography Concerning Narrative Identity Understanding captivated my attention immediately upon reading that “Autoethnographic storytelling has further related and important functions. It can be therapeutic for the storyteller to work through difficult times, events, and issues in his/her own life in the development of a preferred identity” (p. 1). That right there struck a chord with me from last semester’s reading of Defining Voice and How to Use It and Expressive Writing, Emotional Upheavals, and Health by James W. Pennebaker and Cindy K. Chung. In that, “I am yet a firm believer that writing can be used as a clinical tool to voice one’s inner emotions and feelings, in that expressive writing can significantly improve most health concerns” (Allen, 2023). Before publishing my first nonfiction story, I had no idea how freeing it would be to put my raw emotions and feelings into words. No one told me that writing could be used as a healing method: “Specifically, writing personal stories can be therapeutic for individuals as they make better sense of themselves or their experiences, purge themselves of their burdens, and/or determine what kinds of lives they should live” (p. 1). Purging myself about how and why the birth of my second son unfolded was more than I could have anticipated. My story not only empowered me but inspired readers who utilized it as an essential function to work through challenging moments.

I recall when my eldest nephew read my autoethnographic story. As much as he was in awe of the work, he was satisfied that the work read like a story and not your average autobiography. It seemed my narrative was clear enough for any reader to grasp. Reviewer, Author, and Teacher Sandra Stiles said, “I Am Inspired The Beginning” is a book that shows how God will not leave us no matter what we do. Valerie Allen, a minister in her church, finds herself having strange cravings. Upon sending her son to the store to purchase one of the cravings, he jokingly asks if she is pregnant. She denies this and then wonders. Several pregnancy tests later, the truth is revealed. Her one step of God’s will create an unplanned pregnancy. Letting her congregation know of her sin had to have been difficult for her. However, she discovered that no sin is too great to cause God to leave us. This book will inspire you to take your problems and situations to God. She leaves no room for you to continue to sin and make excuses. She makes it noticeably clear that we should strive to stay in tune with God’s will at all times. God will still take our mess and work it out to glorify him if we let him. The title is very appropriate” (June 2009). The whole truth and nothing but so help me. God is often concerned with producing an autoethnographic story. There are no questions that every measure of truth-telling authenticates mine.

Relating the lengthy discussion to the dialogue between Laetitia and Alec in this specific reading, where he concludes, the questions represented potentially really interesting and exciting lines of future reflexive narrative inquiry for him. They helped in guiding his storied self, which is what I took account of for me and potential readers as I wrote. Indeed, questions that kept the valuable dialogue open between my readers and me when communicating with them before and after my story was and is read. Thank you.