Kathryn Roulston, Deborah Teitelbaum, Bo Chang and Ronald Butchart
The purpose of this paper is to present considerations for developing a writing community for doctoral students.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present considerations for developing a writing community for doctoral students.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper reflects on data from a self-study of a writing seminar in which the authors were involved. The authors examined students’ writing samples and peer-review comments, email correspondence, online discussion board postings, meeting minutes and participants’ reflections on their participation in the seminar.
Findings
While doctoral students described benefits from their participation in the writing seminar, the paper provides a cautionary tale concerning the challenges that can arise in the development and delivery of interventions that focus on developing writing communities involving doctoral students.
Research limitations/implications
This article draws on findings from an examination of a writing intervention to consider potential challenges that faculty and students face in developing writing communities. Findings may not apply to other kinds of settings, and they are limited by the small number of participants involved.
Practical implications
The paper discusses strategies that might be used to inform faculty in the development of writing communities for doctoral students.
Social implications
The authors’ experiences in developing and delivering a writing seminar highlight the importance of the process of trust-building for students to perceive the value of feedback from others so that they can respond to the technical demands of doctoral writing.
Originality/value
There is a growing body of work on the value of writing interventions for doctoral students such as retreats and writing groups. These are frequently facilitated by faculty whose area of expertise is in teaching writing. This paper contributes understanding to what is needed for faculty who are not writing instructors to facilitate groups of this sort. Participants must demonstrate a sufficient level of competence as writers to review others’ work; develop trusting, collegial relationships with one another; and be willing to contribute to others’ development and make a commitment to accomplishing the required tasks.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to argue that qualitative researchers have much to learn from conducting methodological analyses of their own talk in relation to research participants in interviews. Yet there are specific difficulties in representing findings from methodological analyses of research interviews.
Design/methodology/approach
Although qualitative researchers have for some time followed recommendations to analyze both “how” interview data are generated in addition to “what” is discussed, little has been written about the challenges of representing these sorts of analyses. The paper uses a case to first examine difficulties in the representation of an analysis of interview data that draws on discursive psychology. After discussing the case, the paper further explores the challenges of conducting and presenting these sorts of methodological analyses of interview data to research participants and readers in ways that clearly convey what might be learned by examining how interviews are accomplished.
Findings
The paper outlines considerations for researchers in doing methodological analyses of interview data, including challenges, reconciling interpretations of “what” and “how” topics are discussed in research studies, and possible areas of focus.
Research limitations/implications
This paper examines what researchers might learn from examinations of their own interview practice and does not focus on representations of topical analyses.
Practical implications
The paper argues that when interviewers subject their own talk to analysis, they learn about themselves, their craft, and the ways in which knowledge about social worlds are collaboratively produced in research encounters with participants.
Originality/value
By developing expertise in how to analyze their interview interaction methodologically, qualitative researchers can attend to significant features of their interview practice and in so doing, develop a reflexive research practice.
Details
Keywords
Cady Berkel, Velma McBride Murry, Kathryn J. Roulston and Gene H. Brody
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of considering both fidelity and adaptation in assessing the implementation of evidence‐based programs.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of considering both fidelity and adaptation in assessing the implementation of evidence‐based programs.
Design/methodology/approach
The current study employs a multi‐method strategy to understand two dimensions of implementation (fidelity and adaptation) in the Strong African American Families (SAAF) program. Data were video recordings of program delivery and pre‐test and post‐test interviews from the efficacy trial. Multilevel regression in Mplus was used to assess the impact of fidelity to the manual, coded by independent observers, on racial socialization outcomes. One activity on racial socialization, a core component of the program, was selected for an in‐depth examination using conversation analysis (a qualitative method of analyzing talk in interactions).
Findings
Results of the quantitative analyses demonstrated that fidelity of the selected activity was associated with increases in parent's use of racial socialization from pre‐test to post‐test, but only when participant attendance was included in the model. Results of the qualitative analyses demonstrated that facilitators were making adaptations to the session and that these adaptations appeared to be in line with cultural competence.
Research limitations/implications
The development of quantitative fidelity measures can be problematic, with many decision points to consider. The current study contributes to the evidence base to develop a quantitative measure of adaptation for family‐based parenting programs.
Originality/value
Many researchers examining implementation of evidence‐based programs consider fidelity and adaptation to be polar ends of a single spectrum. This paper provides evidence for the importance of examining each independently.