Center for Women and Work at UMass Lowell: Another Great Holiday Fair

It was another great success--the annual holiday fair of the Center for Women and Work at UMass Lowell.  Thursday November 29 from 2-7 pm at the Inn and Conference Center--you had to be there or be square. 

For the second year, I was invited to serve as the official MC (translation: person who introduces musicians and urges everyone to shop more).  I know why I was asked--I have the right hat!  The Jester's hat!

And--here I am modeling the silent auction item I won--a crocheted piece by psychology professor Sarah Kuhn. 

This event has now become a holiday time feature on the campus--it celebrates the work of campus women, raises funds for the Center for Women and Work, and is a great time for all!  Don't miss next year's event. 

Discussion of NVivo Project with UMass-Lowell Center for Women and Work Research Associates

This morning I was privileged to be the object of attention of my fellow Center for Women and Work Research Associates at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell.  We meet on a monthly basis to discuss our research projects and learn from the discussion of an interdisciplinary group of scholars.   This is my second tour of duty with this group.  [Meg Bond, CWW Founder to Right]

During the first tour (two years), I was working on my Journal Project.  Thanks to this internal research support, I was able to conduct some very risky and experimental research around the integration of arts-based research and qualitative computing...and that work is now being exhibited, published, discussed, etc.  Centers like this are critical on universities to provide encouragement for faculty to germinate new ideas, take those first steps, and work through a project--the in-kind support they offer is every bit as important as a financial award.

As I said, this is my second tour of duty, and in this period I am working on the sexting project, a three-state, interdisciplinary study of teens and sexting.  I am the official qualitative researcher on the project.  PI Andrew Harris from our Criminal Justice Department joined me.  We described the initiative, showed the NVivo Project, and shared our notion of the continuum of what sexting means in the teen mind.

As I explained to them in showing NVivo...leveraging the transparancy and portability of this tool--and showing you what the coding looks like--makes me vulnerable.  Most people don't publicly share their research in this way, but its a commitment we have that goes along with using the software.  [It is scarey...a project is like the inside of your brain, it's like letting people into your file cabinet, your closets.]

Then the group asked us questions--really good questions (as they always do).  The group ranged from psychology and sociology to economics; there were qualitative and quantitative researchers.  They were awestruck by the size and amount of materials--number of sites, focus groups, students involved (9 schools; 3 states; 123 students...and that's only part 1...I know we went "data heavy"...but when you are a data hog--it's hard to set boundaries!)  They were pleased with the way we were building up from the emic perspective.  That struck them as important.  And, they asked for some things we need to dig for in the data to better set the cultural context for understanding the responses:


1.  What are the opportunities at each school to hear messages about sexting?  Where do they occur?  Are they in separate places or integrated in any way? 
2.  What are the school's written policies about technology use?

They, like the students we interviewed, had a range of views about what sexting was--"Is it this?"  "Is it that?"  Everyone gets confused, whenever we start talking about the project...but they asked very astutely, what do these messages/photos actually look like?  That's not for this study--we are looking at views expressed in interviews (and I hate to think of the IRB issues related to procuring young people's sexting examples...), but it was an excellent thing to think about--because that is truly where the rubber meets the road! 

Thanks to CWW for providing opportunities for this kind of discussion! 

UMass Lowell Emerging Scholars and Qualitative Data Analysis Software NVivo

Last night I had the wonderful opportunity to be present at an NVIVO training workshop for the Center for Women and Work's (CWW) Emerging Scholars Program (undergraduates working with faculty mentors).

My former doctoral student, Stuart Robertson, NVivo trainer par excellence, led the three hour event. It is so exciting to see our UMass-Lowell graduates taking on the qualitative research world as consultants, trainers, and leaders in the NVivo world (In addition to Stuart, Stacy Penna, and Cindi Jacobs are also NVivo experts working for QSR).

The software continues to grow and complexity but Stuart makes it seem so easy and natural. He calms all fears and answers all questions--but he was doing this even as a graduate student. What a gift.

I am excited to see undergraduates thrown into the NVivo soup pot and seeing what happens. It doesn't seem to hurt them to start their learning about qualitative research from this place--a software. One told me that he hadn't been formally been introduced to qualitative research before, but from figuring out the software he could extract the ideas about qualitative research. [This would be anathema to some researchers...but really do we need to have all that theory and philosophy before we start doing it?]

My two emerging scholars have been working for the last few weeks in the software...same way...here's what you need to do, here is how the tool works...and I wrap in comments about qualitative research as we go along. They don't seem to be the worse for it, and I feel like I am teaching in a very fluid and natural way. Focusing on the project (sexting) keeps us organized. It makes me wonder how could I move classes that are formally named "Qualitative Research" more toward this model of "do".

An exciting evening. But then any time spent with our Emerging Scholars is time well spent.

The New Research Paradign is NOT Mixed Methods: It's Inclusion

Image via WikipediaIt's strange to wake up and think, "Oh, I've had a blog."  But that is what happened this morning.

I was giving thought to the wonderful team I am working with on the Sexting and Teens project...and that led me to thinking about how it was different in nature and quality from the structure and qualities of so many other research teams...like various kinds of research projects that try to 'work across the aisle' (as in mixed methods)...which led me to think about dissertation committees...and then that led me to thinking about  the work I have done over the past two years as an Associate at the UML Center for Women and Work...and now as a participant in their new Emergent Scholars program for undergraduates. 

What it brings me to is that I think in addition to all of the other revolutions our world is engaged in, we are also undergoing the throes of a paradigm shift in the ways we consider research methodology.  We are shifting from the old reality in which single disciplines dominated, hand-in-hand with single methodological approaches.  I find these studies to be, what I would call, descriptively based.  This is the world in which the separate divisions of qualitative research grew up--grounded theory, case study, ethnography, symbolic interactionism.

The new paradigm of research is highly interdisciplinary in subject matter, and highly integrative in methodology.   It is grounded in complexity and is what, I would call, as problem-based.  It requires far more community to find the answers--a community of researchers working in and with communities of users/experiencers.  It is driven by the factors that are driving so much of world change:  globalization, new technologies, new forms of visualization. 

Currently, we are passing through a hybrid stage that we refer to as "Mixed Methods".  It mixes the best and worst of both worlds. 

I think one dark side of the old paradigm is that it leaned toward the exclusionary--exclusion of other disciplines, exclusion of other methods, purism in methodological perspectives.  In this world, you were valued when you are pure.  You were valued when surrounded by others who are just like you.  When you leave those enclaves you needed to be wary...which leads to be prickly.  Micro and macro discrimination were prevelant around methodology. 

The light side of the new paradigm as I have experienced it is inclusion.  As a qualitative researcher, I feel included, honored, and valued.  I can be part of research discussions addressing a range of topics with a range of methodologies and I feel that my methodological approach is valued.  I can be expert in what I am expert in, and don't have to prove expertise in every other kind of methodology because to solve the problem, understand the phenomenon we all have to pitch in and bring what we have.  

This is not to say that single discipline, single method studies are suddenly useless or to be denigrated, but the ground is shifting under our feet and as research methodologists we will need to be able to enter these new environments.  I like the fact that I can be expert (a qualitative research) and be valued in an interdisciplinary group.  I like the fact that in these new environments the various kinds of blatent and less blatent discrimination that has been practiced against my kind is not considered acceptable. 


But this creates a dilemma...because now I also have to come up to the mark myself and practice inclusion, not exclusion.  This is a dirty secret that qualitative researchers would rather not say much about, but it is also there. 


Many, many thanks to the members of these research teams/groups/experiences that are inclusively moving forward.