This week’s readings and lecture were a reminder that terms can vary in use but extend similar meanings. I felt the same disorientation when learning about the paradigm wars in my first year of studies. The categories my professor used at that time were slightly different descriptors than those employed in our readings and I felt unmoored. After a discussion clarifying the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological differences between paradigms in class I felt like I was back on a solid foundation of understanding from which to operate. However, I floundered when reading articles that used different labels to define the same paradigms! It was a reminder that “mastery” of a topic doesn’t begin until one is very well read in a particular topic. The future researcher in my mind reminds me that I have to continue to develop more flexibility or openness to interpretations for qualitative analysis. As I seek to understand the articles and texts, I will need even more strategies to ensure that I accurately interpret the meanings in research participants’ artifacts.

I really appreciated the discussion around theory in class. Theoretical frameworks are challenging to grasp and choose between. As I complete my coursework, some advisors suggested choosing my theoretical framework before beginning a deep dive into a literature review, and others suggested using the literature review or waiting until I have collected and analyzed some data to guide me to theory. In practice, it was easier for me to choose a theory first, but as I am working through my review of literature, I believe that I have found a different approach that fits my future work soundly. I define my theoretical framework as the lens through which I will view my entire research problem. Reading the textbook about conceptualizations and how they lead to theories was really helpful. I learned about Self-Determination Theory by stumbling across it in an article on distance learning and I gathered and read so many articles about it to use it in my literature review and theoretical framework. However, it seems like this is the theory that is suggested to many novice researchers! This makes me feel like I have chosen a “safe” but tired theory.

The idea of a concept map makes a lot of sense to me. My current organization of my literature review is a synthesis matrix, and I have learned that organizing information (data or literature) is vital to staying on track. My synthesis matrix is like an annotated bibliography with elaborations.

I disagree with Berg and Lune’s (2017) caution about using materials published solely on the internet. Some academics are pushing towards producing and accessing more open-source materials in an effort to reduce barriers for learners. This demand also comes with an increased expectation of higher quality, peer-reviewed materials available to all. So while I agree with the authors’ reminders of quality checking, I think it is important to acknowledge the work of open source content creators and the usage of creative commons licensing.

The article by McCotter (2001) was an encouraging ethnographic. It was a reminder not just to write in our journals, but also to reflect on them. This is something I do regularly with my journal. Knowing that the purpose behind my PhD is steered (and biased) by the work I do in a public school system, my journal contains tangents that include my experiences at work, in my studies, and some relevant personal observations. I look back regularly, in particular at how my research problem remains unchanged but the ways in which I have dreamed of tackling it have evolved. I realize that this catalogue of ideas is still very important because as I discard an idea for my dissertation, it can still be an idea used for a future paper or study. This article was a hopeful piece filled with good advice and connections.

The article by Golafshani (2003) reminded me of an article I read by Yadav (2021) shortly before our term started. Yadav (2021) conducted a literature review of criteria for good qualitative research. Both articles spoke to the need for flexibility and strong foundations in the range of approaches in qualitative research. Neither article offered a golden ticket for a one-size-fits-all approach for defining rigor, but instead suggest a myriad of ways to evaluate qualitative research.