My research question is still evolving, however hopefully the structure and much of the content of my mindmap will continue to be applicable and appropriate. I've shared the mindmap with Michael and told him to be brutal in offer critical suggestions.

I'm just back from a useful meeting with colleagues involved in online distance education at The University of Edinburgh. Sarah and Amy had kindly agree to meet to talk about my planned research. Although the nature of my research has changed since we set the meeting earlier this week (see previous post), it was nevertheless good to hear their take on how I might approach the research. The main points I'm going to take away from the meeting are as follows:

1. The sample should extend beyond the MSc in E-Learning as this isn't necessarily a typical cohort. They suggested at least two other courses, although they recognised the scope of my research.
   I might wish to consider randomized sampling in order to avoid reaching only the most motivated students.
   They could definitely identify programme leaders who would be willing to support the exercise and identify students.
   
   
Overall, I'm approaching the research in a different way than I think they would favour (I think they would underderstandably prefer a broader sample, the inclusion of a quantitative element and more of a focus on considering the practical rather than the conceptual with a view to producing something actionable). Nevertheless, they were broadly positive, encouraging and we concluded the meeting with the shared hope that my research might seem the emergence of finding that could be of value to the university.

I sat up last night wee Joe, Ennio Morricone and a Gin & Tonic. Using the mindmapping software bubbl.us I tried to sketch some an outline for my research proposal. After some time, a picture gradually began to form of how my research my look. The focus of my research continue to evolve and my latest working title is:

Picturing Edinburgh: how do online distance learners view their University?

Clearly, this is quite a change from what I originally had in mind, however I'm happier with this than my previous idea. There's more scope for creativity in how I collect data and disseminate findings. In fact, I think it's more personally interesting to me all round. However, I'll now need to take this to Jen and Sian to see how they feel about this shift in approach. So, the wee small hours of the night might prove to have been well spent.

I wonder what Robson has to say about the positive impact of late night stimulants on research design?

Hmmm. A moment of clarity there. I've been meandering along with a vague working title for my research project of 'campus envy amongst distance learners at The University of Edinburgh' however when I come to articulate what I really mean, I realise that I'm not too clear on it. In fact the more I try ideas down on the screen, the less certain I become of what it is that I'm talking about. And if, as Robson says, the idea of a research proposal is about explaining with clarity to 'disinterested judges' that you have something interesting and achievable in mind, then I'm onto a loser. Back to the drawing board then.

More quick progress on my plans to formulate a research question that might produce results of benefit to the University. Sarah Gormley has this morning mentioned my plans to senior colleagues from the Distance Education Initiative at Edinburgh University. As a side note, I have previously undertaken some small scale research for the DEI group in the last couple of years. Here's Sarah's update:

'Hello James. Both David and Jeff think this sounds like a really interesting area. They also advised you consider a neutral research question – as the phrase campus envy assumes it exists and it is not a good thing! And getting ethical clearance and getting approval via the student survey panel – apologies if you know about this already.'

Again, this is really useful useful feedback and the thought I gave last night to reshaping my research was evidently time well spent. Furthermore, I've arranged a meeting with Sarah and Amy for tomorrow morning at 11am to discuss my plans in more detail. In a way I feel like I'm delaying the actual preparation of the research proposal, however I'm certain that time invested at this stage will lay down firmer foundations and make for a better piece of work in the long run. So, I have a small but priceless window of opportunity tomorrow morning to put some meat on the bones of my research. I'll need to carefully formulate some questions to make best of use the opportunity. And that will require some coffee.

In the last couple of days I’ve followed Robson’s advice and have consulted colleagues from Edinburgh University about the planned focus of my dissertation research. I put two questions to Sarah Gormley from Information Services (who works as a project officer in the distance education area):

1. Would my area of research be of interest to the University? Would it offering anything new?
2. Could she envisage any resistance to my proposed research area?

Very helpfully, Sarah replied almost instantly to my request, as follows:

This sounds really interesting. It would be good for us to understand better how DL perceive their experience compared to on-campus. I just mentioned this to Amy our Student Experience Project Officer; the only question it raised for us it how you would find out how people feel about this without highlighting there may be a deficit or disadvantage? Sometimes it seems to us that asking these questions makes the research subject perceive there is a problem even if there isn’t one.

In answer to your questions: 1. I think this would definitely be an area that could be of benefit to the wider uni, and 2) I see no problems or objections. But I do have a DEI Exec meeting tomorrow am and I will ask Jeff about that and report back to you.

I can see Sarah and Amy’s point. Even the inclusion of ‘campus envy’ in the title of the research proposal could contribute towards bias. Taking this useful feedback on board, I therefore spent some time last night trying to formulate a research question that would offer more balance. This is still a work in progress, although I’ll need to get something nailed down soon as it obviously impact upon other areas of the research. Nevertheless, this feels like important progress as it fits my personal intention of producing something seen as useful, whilst also putting some of Robson's suggested approaches into practice.

Again, adapted from Robson (2011) and hopefully a useful 'things to avoid' checklist' for my own work over the next week.

The opening question on the RM discussion board is a challenging one: what is truth?

This is a question I put each year to my pre-university students, as part of a wider session on Critical Thinking. The focus of that activity is to encourage students to consider conceptually what it means to be a member of the academic community. We want students to recognise that higher education will be about critically considering information they encounter, rather than simply accepting it as truth. The students arrive on our course within days of having completed final year school exams, an environment that could be seen as privileging memorisation and recital of facts over critical reflection. 

Our approach involves taking a concept or statement and then asking whether we can accept it as being 'the truth'. Students are encouraged to devise ways of establishing the credibility of the concept in front of them, prompting them to put the proposition to the follow critical examination:

Why should we believe this author? What evidence does he provide? What authority does she have to talk about this subject? Who funded this piece of research? Was political bias at play? How recently was the study carried out?

The conclusion we normally reach is that 'the truth' is something that can be hard to establish. More important however is establishing a method of critical examination that allows us to test the credibility of the information that's in front of us. But even then there are problems. Within our multi-disciplinary classroom the idea of truth or of a 'right answer' can vary between different students. I've heard future scientists, doctors and engineers argue in favour of at least some level of hard and fast facts. Prospective humanities students meanwhile might be more inclined to focus on presenting a convincing argument than establishing 'the truth'.

So, it's a challenging question, but a fascinating one, too.

In my opening blog entry I asked whether Research Methods might be perceived as ‘measured and sober’ in comparison to some of the other courses within the MSc in E-Learning portfolio. On the contrary, if the introductory post on the What is truth? discussion thread is anything to go by, the following weeks might prove to be emotionally charged:

'…these can be surprisingly emotive questions and it's to be expected that a number of different, and very probably incompatible, perspectives will be expressed.'

Crotty (1998:14) similarly acknowledges this atmosphere of conflict, referring to a ‘great divide’ between those marching under the qualitative banner and those who have taken up position in the quantitative camp [my emphasis]. Robson meanwhile describes how these ‘Warring tribes of quantitative and qualitative social researchers fought a good fight’ (2011:18) but, in common with Crotty, he discourages a simple choosing of sides in the research process.

Robson suggests that when designing our research process, we might adopt a multi-strategy approach comprising both qualitative and quantitative elements. Or to labour the conflict metaphor to, er, death, the researcher might be armed with methodological tools from both the qualitative and quantitative armouries. Crotty (p15) meanwhile suggests moving beyond the qualitative/quantitative battleground to instead focus on choosing between an objectivist/positivist or a constructionist or subjectivist research approach.

So having acknowledged the theoretical conflict that has existed between different researchers, both authors privilege a more conciliatory and less confrontational attitude, an approach also encouraged within the original discussion thread:

‘…we ask that you be both frank as you explore your own position, and considerate of differences of opinion.’

The favoured approach here is consistent with my own intention to approach the views of others, and the wider course, with an open mind (as outlined in my opening blog entry). It’s also useful to have this gentle warning at the beginning of the course, before things get too heated. After all, nobody wants to see a rumble in the Holyrood Park gym.

I'm glad to be using a blog in my studies once again. Over the last couple of years, blogging really has assisted my learning and made the studying experience more enjoyable. It has been a great place to attempt to construct and share my own ideas in relation to the concepts introduced in texts. It's also where I've most readily attempted to make sense of the (pedagogical and digital) world around me. I think a blog can be a homely place, a space where you feel in control of your own surroundings and comfortable in 'being yourself'. Unfortunately the ELGG blog - the resource we're using in RM - doesn't fit this at all. It's technically limited, distinctly user unfriendly and, critically, not somewhere I want to spend time. My response then it to blog in this space and try and find a way of feeding the content into the WebCT blog.

Nevertheless, focusing on the bigger picture, how I am I going to use this blog? The RM course website offers the following useful advice:

'Use your blog as your research notebook, and a place for informal and formal discussions about your research' 

This is both attractive and sensible, however I intend to extend the employment of my blog beyond the research notebook to include obervations, tasks lists and other course-specific information that might support and enhance my participation in Research Methods. This, of course, should automatically inform my formal and informal thoughts about research.

To begin then, here's a Things to do list for week 1, compiled from the different parts of the RM course website and my own thoughts:

 This week’s tasks:

• Start by having a browse around the content of the course site Done!
• Start thinking about course assignments 
• Post an introduction on the course discussion forum Done!
• Respond to a few introductory posts Done!
• Begin the introductory reading for the course. First two chapters of Robson Done!, the first chapter of Cohen, Manjon and Morrison (2007) and the Chapter by Crotty (1998) Done!
• Listen to a conversation between your course tutors - Jen and Hamish
• Begin to post your ideas about the nature of social research - discussion area set up entitled "What is Truth?"
• Have a look at the Tools section in the Welcome area of the course site
• Work out how to feed this blog into the ELGG powered blog
• Add assignment dates to diary, match 'week 1' etc with real dates and add to diary Done!
• Change the password to this blog to something more easily remembered Done!

Actually that looks like quite of lot of work that I should be getting on with, if only I could drag myself away from the homely comforts of my blog. Maybe I've underestimated the ELGG blog, after all?

Sunday night. Pack lunch prepared. Pencil case reloaded with highlighters and an array of coloured post-it notes (thank you, Santa). Shirt ironed, shoes polished. Alarm set anticipating an early rise. It all points to one thing: it’s the beginning of a new term. 

So, what can I expect from the Research Methods on the MSc in E-Learning? As part of the recommended course orientation, I spent some time over the weekend reading through the course pages on WebCT, familiarising myself with the assignments and adding dates to my diary. I read the course introduction with interest, making mental notes of some of the practical and pedagogical challenges that await. More than just outlining course themes and the different assignments, under the title 'Why this is difficult' the introductory commentary on the course website reveals something of the dilemma frequently attached to courses in this field: 

‘Courses in research methods, whether at undergraduate or postgraduate level, frequently suffer from low levels of student engagement and motivation, are poorly rated by their participants, and most importantly, they often fail to build the foundations they are designed to provide.’

An interesting way to open the course, even if this isn’t intended to describe our own RM course. However, I appreciated the up front honesty in acknowledging that this is a difficult field in which to study. I found this reassuring. I’ll explain why.

As a result of some university-based project work over the last year, I’ve had the good fortune to speak to a number of graduates from the MSc in E-Learning. The nature of discussion has been almost entirely positive, however I’ve sensed that the RM course might be the most demanding part of the entire course. I also see from the Introductions thread on the course discussion board that one or two of my fellow students are apparently approaching the course with some trepidation.

‘So this is it: the big looming course I have been dreading since reading of MScel the first time…’

I wonder whether these feelings of uncertainty or the apparent difficulty of the course are somehow rooted in the fact that so much of the MSc in E-Learning feels groundbreaking and cutting edge. I wonder whether RM is perceived to be more regimented and necessarily less experimental in comparison? E-Learning and Digital Cultures and Digital Gamed Based Learning are unquestionably ‘fun’, ‘playful’ and adventurous whereas RM might be seen as more measured and sober (and for the record, I'm not attaching these labels to a course I have yet to commence).

The fact then that the course introduction echoes what I've heard about the course is reassuring. Yes it's demanding, but that's the nature of the field. Hey! Nobody said this was gonna be easy! And anyway, I've found every course on the MSc simultaneously challenging, rewarding and perspective changing.

So ahead of the first day of term I'm getting ready to enter class with my eyes open to what will a challenging course, but also with my mind open to new ideas and experiences. And if things become really tough, at least I’ve got some lovely new stationery to use.