La Enseñanza Y El Aprendizaje De Las Ciencias Sociales

1. What are the most serious validity threats (alternative explanations) that you need to be concerned with in your study? In other words, what are the main ways in which you might be mistaken about what’s going on? Be as specific as you can, rather than just giving general categories. Also, think about why you believe these might be serious threats.

2. What could you do in your research design (including data collection and data analysis) to deal with these threats and increase the credibility of your conclusions? Start by brainstorming possible solutions, and then consider which of these strategies are practical for your study, as well as theoretically relevant.

For this Maxwell memo I shall use Lincoln and Guba's four criteria appropriate to the naturalistic paradigm. I believe my research will face validity threats related to all four of the criteria.

1. "truth value" (credibility)

My positionality as a former teacher makes me a "stranger in a strange land" inside a homeless shelter for a number of reasons. Distortions in the responses of study participants may occur and might be traced to this positionality. Everyone has

experiences, some painful, some positive, with education, schools, and teachers in a society where school attendance is mandatory. Will the respondents answer my questions truthfully, or will they tell me what I want to hear, or will they be hostile? Most likely, all three possibilities will be manifested. So how might I discern what is authentic and what is not?

a. I intend to spend a prolonged period conducting participant observation in a homeless shelter's dayroom, obtaining access by volunteering as a literacy tutor. In this way I hope to "blunt" the novelty of my presence, as well as establish my presence to be benevolent as a helper. I also hope to capitalize on an existing relationship with a staff member who will introduce me to individual residents. In short, the priority upon my insertion into the field will be on establishing trust. My identity as an educator is also an asset (although for some it may be a liability); I have long experience working with at risk and marginalized individuals.

b. I will write out what my expectations are as to what may be observed in the day room before I begin volunteering. This can serve as a check later by comparing my expectations with my actual experiences as an embedded observer.

c. I am considering a request to conduct a focus group not only for the purpose of eliciting responses, but as a vehicle for residents to offer input to the library system about

their perceptions and experiences in the library. The focus group will be cast as a project as well as a research activity, by videotaping, editing, and narrating the tape to then be delivered to the library, once the group has approved its content. This will serve as a member check.

(Later note: because the data became saturated after eight interviews in terms of answering the question of commonalities, I decided to focus group in addition to interviewing was not necessary.)

d. For those respondents willing to meet with me multiple times, I will offer a transcript of our interviews that can be checked by the respondent.

e. The research will include interviews with staff at both the homeless shelter and the library, with a number of questions overlapping with the homeless interview. In this way, I hope to establish triangulation for some of my conclusions, the third point of the triangle consisting of the focus "group".

f. I plan to use grounded theory methodology, where contextual validation is inherent if properly conducted.

(Later note: After learning about phenomenography, I became interested in capturing variations as well as commonalities. Therefore I rejected grounded theory.)

g. As this is a doctoral dissertation, I look forward to debriefing as many aspects of the study as possible with mentors and particularly with fellow students (my peers). 2. applicability (transferability)

The transferability of conclusions from this study would depend on the extent that alternate sites and individuals hold a number of variables in common with one another and with the sites and individuals involved in this study. The investigator cannot know how, when, or where conclusions might be applied, so therefore transferability is not a goal of this descriptive study. In particular, public libraries vary greatly in many ways.

However, it should be noted transitional homeless shelters, while varying in their range of services and size of populations, are all focused on one purpose: empowering residents to obtain independent housing. By definition, transitional shelters all work with residents over a period of time, ranging from 30 days to six months or a year or more. Interview questions about the relationship of a reading life to obtaining affordable housing will be posed. However, this study does not seek to draw conclusions about populations or institutions.

The focus is on the individual experience of the reader with text, an inherently constructivist investigation requiring thick description. This will be a study primarily of

inner experiences of the human mind as reported by individuals. It focuses on self-

reported, self-described change. The study does not seek to establish universality, but will pose the possibility of commonality. Conclusions may represent working hypotheses for further study. It should be noted there has not been research of this kind with this

population before, so far as is known. Providing a descriptive database about the impact of a reading life on homeless transition would be a beginning to help others make transferability judgments.

3. consistency (dependability)

To insure a dependable, consistent approach, the involvement of the doctoral committee may be extensive, effectively serving as inquiry auditors, examining both the process of the study and the products produced, including field notes, transcripts, memos, interview guides, and a reflexive journal.

(Later note: for this reason I chose to create an audit trail.) 4. confirmability

This criterion overlaps with dependability. The final products also provide evidence for an inquiry audit seeking to confirm the logic and internal soundness of the study. At this stage of my thinking, one of my overriding concerns about establishing the "validity" of this study is its complexity. Actually, it seems to me the "inquiry audit", as well as the crafting of "products", have already begun, as I continue to struggle with research design.