If life is what happens to our plans, then dance is what happens to our steps.
ideas sometimes when you wait they come to you.

Preparation for starting with BAPP

Monday, 10 November 2014

Thoughts from Campus session

Firstly, analysis is not just summing up your data. Analysis is a critical look at the whole experience comparing three things – the literature (the ideas other people have said), your own experience including your experience of collecting the data, your reflective diary, and the experiences before the inquiry that led you to be interested in doing it in the first place, and lastly the data you collect. Looking at themes and resonance and contradictions across all three of these is called triangulation. Doing this is how you can critically look at the questions you posed at the beginning of the inquiry. Doing this unpicks everything and is always (whatever level of work you are doing), always disorientating, some what frightening and confusing because it is the point where you are opening yourself up to look for something new, to stretch yourself beyond what you know you know. But that is the heart of the inquiry; be brave. Because it is after data collection you might feel you need to tidying everything up not make a mess in your head but the data collection is not the climax of the inquiry it is just getting something to do the inquiry with. After collecting data it is not time to tidy up, its time to get cooking all the ingredients. See some of my past blogs.

Secondly, the artefact is NOT the result of the inquiry: like the answer to the whole thing. The artefact is as much about the process as the critical review paper you are writing.

So please think as if you are in fact handing in TWO artefacts. Two things that explain the inquiry.  The first is in the form of a formalise academic artefact – a critical review. The second is in the form of something that is found in your professional practice (culture) it is a professional artefact. We can not say what this will be because it is different for each person according to their work / profession. We can help in telling you what the first artefact (the critical review looks like – in fact we give you guide-lines on what it looks like how many words etc… and we also give you guide-lines on how to start making it – when the start drafting etc…). But just because we help out with what the academic artefact (the critical review) looks like doesn’t mean the critical review IS the inquiry. It is a result of the inquiry just as the professional artefact is too. The Inquiry – what you are documenting with the two artefacts is the activity and reflective thought you do. Many people think by writing (I don’t): so maybe making the critical review will be how you analyse the inquiry, but the professional artefact could just as well be how you work out what it’s all about. So think of the Professional Artefact as another way of explaining your inquiry. So you can see you need to do the whole inquiry before you can be really clear about the content of the critical review or the professional artefact. But now is the time to start to open a space for what the professional artefact will be even if all you do is plan out time in your diary in early December when you will start working on it.

So in fact you will explain your inquiry in three ways through writing (critical review), through talking (oral presentation) and through x? (professional artefact. Each of these ways of sharing offer unique advantages for communication and have things that can not be communicated very well through them. Think about how you will use the three forms.

1 comment:

  1. Hi Adesola,

    This is very useful for me as I am at the point of looking at all my data and reviewing what has been said and what I have found. I have started to sum up my data which you say is not analysing but I would of thought this was the first stage of analysing? organising and summing up all of my data and finding themes before the analysis begins.

    I have one question about how to the structure the analysis, do I separate my literature, observations and interview analysis from one another. Although I understand we are linking them together, how would I set this out? Also, if I am referring to something that has been said in my literature how do I do this? Do I need to quote it again or can I just refer back to it by a page number?