I enjoyed our class discussions this week and I appreciated the opportunity to work in a breakout session with classmates so that I may get to know the others in the course – I still feel a bit like an outsider. Our debate centered on which was better or worse: more intrinsic or extrinsic identifiers on our 20 question list. Each member of the group noticed that we found it easier to focus on labels that were negative about ourselves instead of the things about which we feel pride. Completing this exercise was a good reminder about the care we need to take of our research participants when we are asking them to disclose information. Even though the task seemed harmless enough, a researcher must still provide after care: check in with the participants to see how they feel, if they have any questions or concerns, and if they are satisfied with the responses they gave.

Dr. Kitchenham reviewed the paradigm wars, which I had learned about in detail only last year. Although the “wars” may be over, I think that understandings continue to shift and expand to accommodate paradigms such as Indigenous and Arts-Based methodologies. As a novice researcher, it still seems that quantitative research holds higher value and esteem in academia. I appreciate that my supervisor insisted on a balanced approach in my learning so that I can read and understand articles as well as potentially participate in studies using a variety of methods. However, as Dr. Kitchenham said at the beginning of class, none of us will be experts in qualitative research at the end of this course; we will be trained in qualitative research (Kitchenham, January 13, 2022).

Dr. Kitchenham brought up Shelley Moore as an example of the importance of citations. I had a very strong connection to this, but not as fully formed as what he shared. I was fortunate to be in one of Shelley Moore’s presentations when she shared a new iteration of her famous “inclusion” diagram. This diagram traditionally showed green dots with coloured dots included (or excluded) in a variety of ways. In the presentation before ours, an audience member asked her why the “average” students were all green dots? This person was pushing back against the idea of “average” students and wondering if inclusion meant acknowledging that all dots (students) were unique and something to be celebrated. Shelley explained that her mind was blown and her newest diagram showed a circle with multi-coloured dots throughout – the designated learners were no longer singled out in any way. The person whose question precipitated this change was not referenced and I haven’t been able to find credit for that individual on Shelley’s website. When Dr. Kitchenham pointed out the extensive body of research upon which Shelley’s work rests, and the lack of citations in her 5 minute videos (and professional development presentations), I was dumbfounded! I know that Shelley is a PhD candidate and is quite close to her defense. I wonder how she has gotten so far along in the public eye without not just citing, but celebrating those from whom she is learning! As a student I know that my work is stronger for the citations I include.

Citations have made a huge impact on my literature review. I find that when I am immersed in a well-written article and the authors are transforming my thinking, that by the time I have finished the article I have highlighted many references for future readings. A well-researched article often leads me to more foundational readings and authors to explore. If one particular title appears on the reference lists of multiple helpful articles I know that I have to pause my to-be-read pile until that article has been located.