I am going ahead and posting without a prompt at this time because this is my time away from kids this weekend and am not sure I'll get another one... I have to read Chapter 5 "The Carr et.al. Study..." My first thought was WOW! my respects to the researchers for embarking in this longitudinal and complex project. As a school psychologist who works with kids with all kind of disabilities I always "extra" admire the teachers and families who day after day work/live with children with severe disabilities. The study did raise all kind of questions though starting with the numbers reported as IQ (without any explanation or interpretation), the selection of the subjects (Val, Gary and Juan), the age, gender and ethnicity differences among the subjects/families, etc. I was not clear either about how much involvement parents had when these participants were supposed to be living in group homes. The ethical dilemma of ABA approach w/o consent. The decision to make Val, Gary and Juan more "independent" and part of the community. It was interesting to see several of the perspectives discussing who was really subject, object, participant. Who was being trained? Whose behaviors changed? Who benefited the most with the intervention? How much can you really generalize after a sample of 3? I think the study did not put forth any effort in explaining why they started that specific project and it would have interesting to know. What is exactly that they were trying to accomplish? Now, even though I agree behaviors have a purpose, I do believe that self-harming behaviors need to be stopped with or without consent; however, when you are doing it as part of a research project you may need to explain the approach you are taking and why. It was interesting to see some perspectives criticizing that the study was not 100% positivism and that it had contents from different perspectives. I think that makes it reacher and more interesting because it is not "contained" within the beliefs of only one paradigm. I know I am a little bit ALL OVER THE place here...but I am still processing all the critics. I have to say, I really enjoyed reading this chapter. Patricia
I read Chapter 6 and loved it! Reading a qualitative study was a breath of fresh air to me—relationships between people mattered more than relationships between numbers, culture and context were highly valued with complexities considered, and contrary to Bochner’s critique, I felt Heath shared a bit about herself as researcher in the project. As Noddings described, it was “research for people, not on them” (p. 153). My past grad school experience has been exclusively with quantitative research, so I know nothing about qualitative methods and reporting. In choosing a journal article for the paper due next week, I feel obligated to choose a quantitative study because I do not yet have the knowledge to critique a qualitative study. When my advisor asked me if I was “qual” or a “quant” person, I didn’t know how to answer. I find great value in quantitative methods and appreciate the neatness and efficiency of the numbers, but I’m also drawn to the richness of qualitative methods. Certainly both are valuable and necessary components of educational research. Perhaps my response underscores the pragmatist and interpretivist in me. Reading Heath’s study, made me eager to take the Qualitative Research Methods class. Do you have definite qualitative/quantitative leanings? Amber
I read Chapter 5 (The Carr et al. Study), and I must admit that it has taken me almost all week to read through it and sort it out in light of the various essays. When I first read the study, which seeks to remediate the problem behavior of three persons with significant developmental disabilities, I was impressed with the long-range nature of the study and the complex system for recording, assessing, and reporting behavior outcomes. I did have a few questions, which I attributed to my own ignorance, and I was somewhat relieved to see several of these raised in the critical responses following the study. I was surprised that the abstract for this study never identified the participants. I read it several times, and nowhere does it mention persons with severe disabilities. It does make a reference to “group home staff,” which offers the reader a clue about the target population of the research, but the specifics of the participants are not even mentioned until the “Method” section. For me, this was a bit confusing, but it was also revealing about the true “participants,” who really benefits from this study: the caregivers (the “stakeholders”). There is lengthy discussion in the opening paragraphs about the stakeholders and what they stand to gain by reducing problem behavior in those they care for. Furthermore, the study seems to be focused primarily on these caregivers, rather than on the three individuals it calls the “participants.” Bochner’s “Interpretive and Narrative” critique of the study points out the fact that the three participants are never really given a voice here, and he poses this question: How would things be different of Carr et al. considered Val, Gary, and Juan to be the stakeholders, and the caretakers, relatives, and job coaches to be the participants?” (p. 123). Howe’s “Ethics” essay gets at the same idea: “Val, Gary, and Juan are more the objects than subjects of the research” (p. 131). Noblit’s “Critical Theory” approach also looks at the issues of power and control over the participants. Because it was often unclear who the real “participants” were, who was being trained, and who stood to benefit, the true purpose behind the study became a bit muddled. There was some talk about increasing autonomy for the participants, but there was never any clear discussion of what was really feasible. I wanted to know more about who the caretakers were and what roles they played in the participants’ lives. I also wanted to know what kinds of responsibility and autonomy were already in place for Val, Gary, and Juan. How much time did each spend at home, in a group home, or in other social situations? How much control over their own lives did these individuals have? Overall, I found the experience of reading the study and the subsequent critiques to be really helpful in teaching me to be a better consumer of research. The “Positivism” critique raised valuable questions about methods and validity, while some of the other essays pointed out issues of power, language, and values. When I went back to the study after reading the critiques, I was much more attuned to these details and read with greater insight. Katie
I am going ahead and posting without a prompt at this time because this is my time away from kids this weekend and am not sure I'll get another one... I have to read Chapter 5 "The Carr et.al. Study..." My first thought was WOW! my respects to the researchers for embarking in this longitudinal and complex project. As a school psychologist who works with kids with all kind of disabilities I always "extra" admire the teachers and families who day after day work/live with children with severe disabilities.
ReplyDeleteThe study did raise all kind of questions though starting with the numbers reported as IQ (without any explanation or interpretation), the selection of the subjects (Val, Gary and Juan), the age, gender and ethnicity differences among the subjects/families, etc. I was not clear either about how much involvement parents had when these participants were supposed to be living in group homes. The ethical dilemma of ABA approach w/o consent. The decision to make Val, Gary and Juan more "independent" and part of the community. It was interesting to see several of the perspectives discussing who was really subject, object, participant. Who was being trained? Whose behaviors changed? Who benefited the most with the intervention? How much can you really generalize after a sample of 3? I think the study did not put forth any effort in explaining why they started that specific project and it would have interesting to know. What is exactly that they were trying to accomplish? Now, even though I agree behaviors have a purpose, I do believe that self-harming behaviors need to be stopped with or without consent; however, when you are doing it as part of a research project you may need to explain the approach you are taking and why. It was interesting to see some perspectives criticizing that the study was not 100% positivism and that it had contents from different perspectives. I think that makes it reacher and more interesting because it is not "contained" within the beliefs of only one paradigm. I know I am a little bit ALL OVER THE place here...but I am still processing all the critics. I have to say, I really enjoyed reading this chapter.
Patricia
I read Chapter 6 and loved it! Reading a qualitative study was a breath of fresh air to me—relationships between people mattered more than relationships between numbers, culture and context were highly valued with complexities considered, and contrary to Bochner’s critique, I felt Heath shared a bit about herself as researcher in the project. As Noddings described, it was “research for people, not on them” (p. 153). My past grad school experience has been exclusively with quantitative research, so I know nothing about qualitative methods and reporting. In choosing a journal article for the paper due next week, I feel obligated to choose a quantitative study because I do not yet have the knowledge to critique a qualitative study. When my advisor asked me if I was “qual” or a “quant” person, I didn’t know how to answer. I find great value in quantitative methods and appreciate the neatness and efficiency of the numbers, but I’m also drawn to the richness of qualitative methods. Certainly both are valuable and necessary components of educational research. Perhaps my response underscores the pragmatist and interpretivist in me.
ReplyDeleteReading Heath’s study, made me eager to take the Qualitative Research Methods class. Do you have definite qualitative/quantitative leanings?
Amber
I read Chapter 5 (The Carr et al. Study), and I must admit that it has taken me almost all week to read through it and sort it out in light of the various essays. When I first read the study, which seeks to remediate the problem behavior of three persons with significant developmental disabilities, I was impressed with the long-range nature of the study and the complex system for recording, assessing, and reporting behavior outcomes. I did have a few questions, which I attributed to my own ignorance, and I was somewhat relieved to see several of these raised in the critical responses following the study.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that the abstract for this study never identified the participants. I read it several times, and nowhere does it mention persons with severe disabilities. It does make a reference to “group home staff,” which offers the reader a clue about the target population of the research, but the specifics of the participants are not even mentioned until the “Method” section. For me, this was a bit confusing, but it was also revealing about the true “participants,” who really benefits from this study: the caregivers (the “stakeholders”). There is lengthy discussion in the opening paragraphs about the stakeholders and what they stand to gain by reducing problem behavior in those they care for. Furthermore, the study seems to be focused primarily on these caregivers, rather than on the three individuals it calls the “participants.” Bochner’s “Interpretive and Narrative” critique of the study points out the fact that the three participants are never really given a voice here, and he poses this question: How would things be different of Carr et al. considered Val, Gary, and Juan to be the stakeholders, and the caretakers, relatives, and job coaches to be the participants?” (p. 123). Howe’s “Ethics” essay gets at the same idea: “Val, Gary, and Juan are more the objects than subjects of the research” (p. 131). Noblit’s “Critical Theory” approach also looks at the issues of power and control over the participants.
Because it was often unclear who the real “participants” were, who was being trained, and who stood to benefit, the true purpose behind the study became a bit muddled. There was some talk about increasing autonomy for the participants, but there was never any clear discussion of what was really feasible. I wanted to know more about who the caretakers were and what roles they played in the participants’ lives. I also wanted to know what kinds of responsibility and autonomy were already in place for Val, Gary, and Juan. How much time did each spend at home, in a group home, or in other social situations? How much control over their own lives did these individuals have?
Overall, I found the experience of reading the study and the subsequent critiques to be really helpful in teaching me to be a better consumer of research. The “Positivism” critique raised valuable questions about methods and validity, while some of the other essays pointed out issues of power, language, and values. When I went back to the study after reading the critiques, I was much more attuned to these details and read with greater insight.
Katie