Are you the Action Researcher when you look at my blog or am I when I look at my blog or am I another Action Researcher when I research my topic and that is what you want me to tell you?
Why did I think that writing up 400 words on my Research Journal would be easy?
What was my topic beyond DBR? Was it to find my epistemology? Was it to look at my son's or my computer addiction or the correlation between the two (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-is-going-on-here.html)?
Was it to find tools and a methodology in order to work and to understand the new system and culture into which I had stepped (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/duh.html, http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/eureka.html)?
It had very little to do with DBR in the greater scheme of things.
Even looking at the blog to find elements/evidence of these nodes and interconnections I am confronted with how our technologies restrict the new ways of thinking we are being called upon to encompass.
As much as computer systems are referred to as networks – this is not present in the blog.
My blog is a linear arrangement of entries by date.
To find the references which act as my evidence and also my inquiry I would need to set up my blog like a spider's web. Once again my lack of knowledge in the tools restricts me.
If I had used tags in the blog – would this have helped me to now show the interconnections between the nodes and the progression that wasn't linear but concentric circles that are still expanding (concentric circles does not adequately translate the experience into a visual image but it is a start)
Our minds are working in associations,
Our language is linear but meanings behind words can bring in depth and other dimensions, particularly if combined with body gestures to convey other meanings,
But our tools are linear and our tools are a language in themselves that direct our thoughts and our communication of those thoughts.
I could review this journal, and my research path that it follows, in a systematic way from the initial selection of a research interest, through the literature review, to the final article on DBR, step-by-step. but that would not communicate how this unit of study occurred within a much greater context that both had an influence on, and was influenced by it.
And actually, to be honest, I could not do that, and my research journal reflects this.
My true research project is what I learned through this experience, or rather what I am still learning as this experience continues.
I had the enthusiasm, I had the enforcing and restrictive emotional influences, my theoretical notions were non-existant and faulty and I needed to develop a methodology.
Did I research or did I inquire and/or manage?
What did I research? I researched much more that what my final essay reflects
Is my research finished?
"Reiteration of themes through cycles"
My research interest is embodied in themes which may not be derived from the specific context. Longer term, broader set of questions, puzzles and topics that motivate the researcher
I did develop an articulation of an epistemplogy expressed as my perspective in the final essay but this in itself is not yet complete and will need to be researched and refined.
I declared an epistemology and hence a recoverable research process?? Did I do this intuitively?
So I was a Researcher in a purposive system in that the purpose of my action to research was imposed – Research literature on a topic of my choice.
Big R write an account of what happened, ensure that certain elements of practise and outcome are described giving evidence.
The Unit was my tool as was each assignment
Level 1:
The problem situation was something to do with the problematic use of computers now-a-days in particular with Games and Virtual Realities which are becoming one of the drugs of our society. Our society that is moving further away from the reality that Buddhism calls us to face if we want to experience Sukha (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/buddhism-says-our-suffering-comes-from.html)
Everybody else seems to have had a Frame work of Ideas and a Methodology to approach their Area of Application. But I didn't.
They took ACTIONS to find Research Themes which lead to their Literature Reviews and final articles
Whilst I was still floundering in a sea of methodological and cultural confusion.
Level 2:
But within that emerged a system that articulated its own purpose and to which I adhered to seek that purpose - was that the purposeful system? Finding my voice, methodology (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/what-would-make-my-life-easier.html), getting to know the culture (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/meta-evaluation-of-review.html), tools (http://nicolafehlmann.blogspot.com/2010/09/whats-missing-on-google-docs.html), language.
Now need to look next to the cluster of stars to see if I can see whatever I am meant to see in here and come back to it.
After I had sent in my paper I felt so calm as if I had understood.
I realise I have so much more to understand but cannot survive another whirlwind of chaos and overwhelment.
Ison, R. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2 ed., pp. 139-159). Los Angeles: Sage.
No comments:
Post a Comment