Not a ‘proper’ activity but I just want to make sure I ‘save’ this thought somewhere.
There is a particular complexity in my research interest in relation to paradigms and theories.
Here we go with unravelling it… Continue reading
(T847, Block 1, Activity 3)
The module materials talk about a theory-based (or theory-guided) approach to research. It refers to the fact that “a theory or model has been proposed as to how the object of what is being researched operates, or what the outcome(s) or impact(s) are likely to be.” It is important to explicitly identify the theory (or theories) that underlie a research project.
The materials cites Chen (2005) who refers to these as ‘assumptions’ and differentiates between two types:
Descriptive assumptions concern the causal processes that lead to whatever problem/issue/event is being investigated.
Prescriptive assumptions prescribe those entities and activities (components, resources, systems, people, etc.) that the designers and/or other key stakeholders in a research project or programme deem necessary to successfully tackling the problem/issue/event.
It seems that in order to think about these assumptions in relation to my research, I need to be a little clearer about the problem/issue/event that I am investigating – I have not yet articulated that explicitly enough. Continue reading
(T847, Block 1, Activity 2)
Activity 2 asks me to identify an example of a paradigm and related theories and concepts that are relevant to the ideas that I am considering for my research.
The T847 materials summarise a paradigm as “a perspective or point of view affecting what is recognised, known, valued, and done. As such, a paradigm advances both a set of assumptions about the world and a philosophical framework for the study of that world.”
The materials also have a neat way of explaining theories and concepts: “suppositions or systems of ideas, or mental representations or abstract objects intended to explain something, or a set of principles on which some form of activity is based.”
(T847, Block One, Activity 1)
The quest for this activity is to identify particular ideas, concepts, theories, arguments, propositions, techniques, tools, case studies – in fact any material – that I have found particularly interesting in my studies to date. An odd question because if I did not find all of it interesting I would not have got here. Nonetheless, what is particularly engaging my interest right now?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) European Office commissioned a study into ‘Governance for health in the 21st century’. The primary purpose of the study is to inform the WHO European Region’s new policy Health 2020. It was carried out by Ilona Kickbusch who I heard speak about the early stages of the study at the WHO European Healthy City Network annual meeting (Liege, June 2011). The final version of the study formed part of the papers at the sixty-first session of the Regional Committee for Europe and is available here.
There are a couple of reasons why this paper interests me. Continue reading
I have recently come across Schein’s work which links to research. I have come across him before – as one of the oft quoted theorists on organisational culture. In fact it is this work that is mentioned in the wikipedia article about him.
Schein’s work draws and comments on that of Lewin – a ‘thinker’ included in the Systems Thinkers book by Ramage and Shipp. Given that, I feel happy adding Schein into my interpretation of a ‘systems thinker/practitioner’.
So what does Schein offer to my thinking…. Continue reading
Way, way back I wrote a post on Systems perspective on health and wellbeing where I touched on the problems associated with performance frameworks derived from the concept of ‘outcomes’. Although the post was ages ago, it’s still something that is current in my mind – not least because my friend who I mentioned in that post is currently writing a paper about this very issue. I read through an early draft and am looking forward to his next version.
My exploration into projects, which started with this post, has just brought me into touch with some interesting material – you know, when someone else explains really well what you have been thinking but have been unable to articulate. Continue reading
In my last post, I touched on my emerging interest in the concept of design and touched back on the notion of the design turn that I covered in TU812 Managing systemic change. Since then I’ve been mulling this over and still have a number of browser tabs open in relation to the short diversionary inquiry I took into ‘design’. Continue reading
I’ve got a feeling that this is going to be quite a long post because I have spent the last two weeks grappling in my head with something that concerns me.
I’ve never been one for Programmes and Projects – with capital ‘P’s – with all the trappings of templates and documentation and traffic light reports but recently I’ve found myself yearning for more structure and more shape to what I am doing. I’ve started to wonder if – in my wholesale rejection of Project methodologies, I have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
True it has been a bit of a extra messy time with particular big fluxes of events and issues over time. Lots and lots of uncertainty – maybe the woolliness is getting to the point when I am lost – and if I’m lost then others around me probably are too. I have started taking action at work to change this but I do want to explore – if not a Project, then what? Continue reading
Coghlan and Brannick (2010,40) have a small section on research paradigms and action research which helpfully adds some more detail to my previous post on Epistemology and research.
First there are some useful explanations: Continue reading