Assalamualaikum, went thru the disc. note on FGD. Didn't get much sense yet, but there are pattern showing relevant to the literature. The literature column is basically categorical, the FGD findings is still data or evidence related to the Q asked. We would not be able to make more sense unless the evidences are listed according to Q responding to e.g. what info.they seek, where do they get it from and why do they need the info. From this pattern then we get to look more holistically into categories that represent their world views. TQ---------------------------------------------
Azamri's response:
WSLM,
In his reply, Dr Ishak (not his real name) raised two issues: (1) that the literature column which I arranged according to Research Questions do not lead us to our desired objectives; (2) evidence should be arranged according to “Q responding”.
Dr Ishak’s feedback is good in the sense that it forces me to reevaluate my approach. Would like to respond to that by first highlighting my objective. During our recent FGD meeting, I have been asked, “to check the theory,” which means to check the findings against the literature. No framework has been specified. Review of Literature, however, are organized according to RQs. So I will stand by my approach. If Dr Ishak's approach has been proposed and agreed upon in the meeting, I will follow exactly what has been agreed.
I believe my approach lead us to our desired objectives because the best way to understand the phenomenon is by tackling the research questions. From the research questions, they lead us to other issues such as what has been mentioned by Dr Ishak (what info.they seek, where do they get it from and why do they need the info).
Dr Ishak however made a useful comment that my “literature column is basically categorical”. In doing this, I had two options, (1) to lump together list of factors/characteristics; (2) to present the concepts that groups them together. I chose the latter because Prof Suria (not her real name) said “to lump together list of factors or characteristics is not LR, you have to make sense by conceptualizing them!”. It is a synthesis, not an indepth comparison. If I am asked to do an indepth comparison, Dr Ishak’s idea is the idea that I would like very much to follow.
Now, regarding Dr Ishak’s view that “We would not be able to make more sense unless the evidences are listed according to Q responding”, I must understand I don’t quite understand it. What I understood is by Dr Ishak’s suggestion to check FGD data against literature, I need to first need to find out themes emerging from respondents’ responses, and then find out what the literature says about that.
I have reactions to the above issues: what has been proposed by Dr Ishak is beyond my “task description”, it is more of Dr Hayati’s (not her real name) job to have insight into perspective of respondents’ experience. My task is to check the theory, as Prof Suria said. What Dr Ishak suggests is not wrong, in fact is good, but it does not come under my responsibility, it g. Perhaps DR Hayati could consider Dr Ishak’s suggestion. My synthesis is just to alert us how far the gap is between our data and what literature says, not an analytical inquiry.
My deep appreciation goes to Dr Ishak for his responses and I would love hear more. Critical assessment is good because it alerts me and forces me to think rationally. The absence of it weakens my mind and body, therefore, keep criticizing my ideas, do not feel guilty of hurting my pride and feelings.
azamri
------------------------------------------
Askum
Thank you for the elaboration. The implicit note in my last response basically ask this following notion:
The literature that we have gathered so far has gone thru the process of analysis and synthesis that emerged into the list of categories as depicted in the mind mapping notes. In the literature, we search info. that are related to the RQs and process & sort them into categories as structured in the mind map. The FGD Qs are the operational means of collecting info. based on the RQs, in fact the researchers become more conscious of what and how to ask in order to capture the world view of the informants and the objectives of RQs. If data collected has not gone thru the same process of analysis and synthesis and mapped as we did for the literature, then there is going to be obvious gap, because the treatment for the data has not been consistent with the treatment on the literature.
TQ
------------------------------------------
W'salam,
I appreciate your response, Dr Ishak. Just like to request clarification, when you said "We would not be able to make more sense unless the evidences are listed according to Q responding" what did you really mean? Is it:
Interpretation A - My approach of doing synthesis (according to RQs as what I have distributed) is useful but if we could list the evidences according to "Q responding" in later stage, it would make more
sense; or
Interpretation B - My approach is a waste of effort, it does not make much sense, unless if I listed out the evidences according to Q responding.
Your clarification is much appreciated, Thank you.
azamri
------------------------------------------
Interpretation A would fit the intent. Whatever it is, we have to go thru data analysis first to make sense.
-----------------------------------------
Azamri's response:
Dr Ishak’s last response is methodologically informative. However it does not satisfy my curiosity. Just to clarify, I agree with the last response. However I suggest Dr Ishak clarifies the seemingly contradictory statements “If the data has not gone through the same process of analysis and synthesis as we did for the literature …” (9 May 2005) with “We would not be able to make more sense unless the evidences are listed according to Q responding” (6 May 2005). For the latter, I interpreted as “the better approach of analysis” in place of listing of evidence according to RQ approach”.
Let’s go to the real issue here – the issue is more technical. My last response was based on Dr Ishak’s statement that, “We would not be able to make more sense unless the evidences are listed according to Q responding”. I don’t know whether what you meant was either
• Interpretation A – My note is useful but if we could list the evidences according to “Q responding” in later stage, it would make more sense; or
• Interpretation B - My note is a waste of effort, it does not make much sense, unless if I listed out the evidences according to Q responding.
I am hoping that what you meant was as in Interpretation A. However, when I reflect more, I am more tempted towards Interpretation B. But I hope that I am wrong. Perhaps Dr Ishak could clarify this. Based on Interpretation B, this is what I have thought
(1) What I have written in the note is basically categorical; therefore, it does not make much sense. Therefore I should abandon this approach.
(2) What I should have done is to organize my notes according to “Q responding” (?) and using this approach we would be able to have our insight into their perspectives.
My clarification: defended my approach for the following reasons;
(1) To have insight into FGD participants’ perspective is Dr Hayati’s task. My specific task in FGD discussion is to “check the theory”. My task in the research will be more on in-depth interview.
(2) I was sending the file to get the feedback from those involved in our last FGD meeting. The extreme right column is for everybody to comment, just to confirm whether what I have written is shared by others or not.
(3) If everyone thinks that the “Q responding approach” is the best for the “checking the theory” synthesis, this should have been discussed earlier and I am happy to follow (assuming that Interpretation B was what Dr Ishak meant).
You might think that I am too fussy about how an idea is worded, but this is the lesson that I learned in our last meeting. Special thanks to Dr Hayati who advised me to be clear and specific “When you mention about image, you have to be specific”. This discussion is partly the product of Dr Hayati’s advice.
azamri
No comments:
Post a Comment