In this artifact, I share my final paper in EDU 9002, Methodological Perspectives in Educational Research. This final paper required PhD students to identify and closely examine the author(s) ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology and research paradigm. Students had to carefully assess the author(s) methods, assumptions, contradictions, strengths and weaknesses. In doing so, I purposely chose to examine Duckworth et al.’s (2007) journal on grit because at the focal point of my Master-level thesis was this paper. I also wanted to use this opportunity to carefully interrogate my past assumptions and see if new revelations would appear in light of this recent coursework.
I came into the process of grit purely by accident. Prior to starting the thesis, I believed that positivism was the gold standard for research practices (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). As I described earlier in my previous artifact (see Theme 1 Artifact 1), my entire professional life has been steeped in positivism. While I identified my transition from quantitative to qualitative approaches was difficult, prior to this assignment, I continued to hold the belief that positivism was flawless. However, as I addressed earlier with my citations from Merriam (2009) and Adams et al. (2015), the rich complexity of social life and the understanding of how people interpret, construct and derive meaning from their experiences demands for a methodology that accommodates for such uncertainty. Consequently, as I drew on my course reading from Schrag (1992), the author declares, “the [positivist] paradigm tries to account for the rich and unpredictable complexity of human interactions by means of a few variables. This reduces complex human dynamics to simplistic patterns” (p. 5). As a result, I continued to question positivism and at the same time maintained the belief that qualitative approaches were appropriate for investigating and understanding how humans interact and behave.
In this pivotal journal by Duckworth and colleagues (2007), the positivistic language was something I was already accustomed to. Prior to this final paper, I held the belief that positivism was flawless due to the objective, arm’s length approach to interaction with participants and its sourcing of data. This is because if a researcher draws from a randomized target population, the results will speak for a generalizable truth to other randomized target populations. As I interrogated my prior understandings with that of the recent knowledge I obtained, I immediately noticed several flaws around the collection of data.
For example, in Duckworth and colleagues’ (2007) research, they chose to remove the situational, social and cultural variables that influenced achievement. Through my own educational practice, whether through secondary or graduate-level teaching, removing such variables from the discussion of individual educational achievement leads to a narrow perspective. This led me to question the notion of generalized claims, which was addressed by a reading from my coursework. In Ercikan and Roth (2006), these scholars address the goal of quantitative research “to make claims about an entire population of cases on the basis of a subset of [a] population” (p. 15). In further scrutinizing Duckworth and colleagues’ research, it appeared that the researchers chose to position themselves using deficit language. Such chosen ideology espouses the achievement of individuals to be through individual actions, personality, mindsets and personal interest. However, in educational research, there are structural factors such as socioeconomic disparities, familial structures and social class which also impact educational attainment. While quantitative methodology makes the claim of objectivity in research practices, both of these examples demonstrate the introduction of biases. All of these revelations continued to fuel my realization that I cannot let my own prejudices and assumptions dictate the direction of my research. Whether subconsciously or through complete ignorance, I unfortunately had accepted these deficiencies and continued to believe in the research as being objective. This was my failure prior to taking the PhD.
In this assignment, I learned something incredibly valuable. No research methodology is perfect as it has its strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, although research is peer-reviewed all writings must be carefully inspected and taken with a grain of salt. When utilizing contributions from other scholars, I need to avoid readily accepting findings. I need to think for myself and carefully review such work to ensure I address and identify any omissions or deficiencies. If I utilize such works, it is paramount that I identify such contradictions and also utilize other scholarly works from other authors to help reinforce my investigation. This will be very helpful as I continue to embark on my PhD dissertation. Ultimately, this assignment equipped me with a new profound sense of perspective; something I did not have before. Therefore, I am privileged to have this realization early in my doctoral studies.
The Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) conference was my first national education-related event that I had the privilege of attending. Attending this conference served two purposes. The first was to conduct a roundtable presentation on my Master-level thesis. The second was to attend as many professional development opportunities as possible on Indigeneity, Afrocentricity and diverse learning. This included enlightening sessions such as, ‘Walking with an Elder: Lessons Learned for Finding a Path Forward for Reconciliation’ (MSVU); ‘Schools and Social Reproduction: Agency, Constraint, and Entitlement During COVID’ (OISE); ‘Elevating BIPOC Youth: Shaping Inclusive Educational Spaces’ (Carleton University, Trent University, McGill University); and, ‘Indigenous and Black Students Marginalized by Educators and Policy: A Call to Action’ (University of Manitoba).
Attending this prestigious national conference was likely my most significant externally highlighted event linked to my PhD programming. While I entered the conference venue with some apprehension, I was mindful that St. Francis Xavier University properly equipped me with the necessary skills to not only speak with confidence at a public venue but, they also afforded me with authentic experiences in being able to debate my speaking points. This was primarily due to StFX’s Education Research Forum (ERF) (see Theme 2 Artifact 3).
Having completed the first draft of the literature review within the PhD course programming, I sought conference sessions that supported my research topic. While the first draft was an early start, I purposely chose to attend other sessions to obtain perspectives that I may have missed. This was a particularly fruitful experience because when I connected with other attendees at CSSE who were researching similar topics, many of their sources mimicked my own. Certain quotations and interpretations were familiar and, as a result, this not only strengthened my belief that I was on the right path, but other scholarly peers arrived at similar conclusions. When I encountered something new, I inquired and sought for citations so I can investigate such insights later.
Through such gathering sessions, I was able to listen and scribe key points as such information will be particularly useful in developing and expanding another draft for the future proposal defense. In addition to maintaining a daily journal and obtaining relevant citations, I also introduced myself to several presenters and asked if I could maintain lines of communication to help support my ongoing dissertation. This networking opportunity was invaluable because while the local maritime context has many world class scholars, maintaining relationships with other individuals can provide many varied and alternative perspectives while also enhancing my professional connections. At the end of the day, I came out of the conference with new thoughts, viewpoints and considerations, which will be particularly useful as my journey continues.
In a span of three days at the CSSE conference, I learned a lot about myself. I walked away feeling much more confident in my abilities to answer difficult questions. One such questioning was from audience members who questioned not only my methodology (i.e., autoethnography) but the legitimacy of my findings. Through my exposure with many different forms of methodological underpinnings, I was able to provide counterarguments for my use of qualitative approaches. While my intention for such counterarguments was not to facilitate a paradigm war (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) between the quantitative and qualitative realms, I was careful to negotiate why qualitative approaches worked for me and how it helped support my investigation. Having completed my critical commentary assignment (see Theme 1 Artifact 2) prior to attending CSSE also aided in my ability to elaborate further to my research methodology. As it appeared, my statements seem to be well received by others, thus solidifying a sense of confidence that I did not expect to feel coming to CSSE.
Ultimately, I walked away from the roundtable presentation with a sense of pride and reassurance. It is my hope to attend other future national-level conferences as these experiences have given me the ability to put my learning and research into action. Additionally, I have shared these revelations with other emerging scholarly peers, hoping to encourage them to follow in these footsteps.
Artifact 2: Critical Commentary
Critical commentary final paper
General Knowledge
Relevant Files
Artifact 1: Individual Research Construct
Individual Research Construct Visual Presentation on Afrocentricity
Artifact 3: Roundtable Presenter and Attendee
2024 Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) Conference in Montreal, Canada
Prior to conducting educational research, my entire discipline was steeped within a quantitative lens. As a physics educator, I once believed that the positivist tradition, which the quantitative paradigm exists in, was the gold standard for research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). However, over time and through personal revelations, I realized that quantitative and qualitative approaches have different merits for answering different questions. If researchers are attempting to ascertain statistical trends and patterns, such researchers would lean on hypothesis testing and statistical treatments for data analysis. However, as these scholars have identified, if one wants to understand the how and why questions, qualitative methods best answer these questions. Rather than solidifying human experiences into numerical data, qualitative researchers are focused on “understanding how people interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to their experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). As Adams et al. (2015) identified, “Social life is messy, uncertain, and emotional. If our desire is to research social life, then we must embrace a research method that … acknowledges and accommodates such mess and chaos, uncertainty, and emotion” (p. 9).
In order to establish why this artifact is a chosen item for consideration, I draw upon two course readings from the EDU 9005 course Advanced Research Seminar: Focus on Methods. In this course, I was introduced to two readings. The first reading was from Clarke and Visser’s (2019) article on the pragmatic research methodology in education. The second article is Finlay’s (2002) journal on personal reflexivity. Clarke and Visser use the analogy of the swamp from Finlay’s journal to describe the methodological mire tied to novice researchers. Due to the inexperience of novice researchers, such beginning investigators may opt to favouring the well-worn, tried and true methodological approaches.
Prior to starting my Master-thesis, my methodological toolbox only contained quantitative approaches. While I had a rudimentary understanding of qualitative methodologies, as I explored further, I realized I could adopt both methodologies. Ultimately, I chose a mixed-methods approach. When the COVID-19 pandemic occurred in March of 2020, my research was put on hold and, it was only in June of 2020 that I decided to pivot. Fortunately, I was introduced to autoethnography. That monumental decision opened a whole new world of different epistemological ways of thinking. Consequently, while the ‘ghost of positivism’— a euphemism used by Thomas and Corbett (2018) to explain the “analytic habits and traditions that mark and reflect the positivist legacy” (p. 173) within social sciences—quantitative approaches still influenced my thought processes. However, due to the enormous amount of time I had available due to the pandemic, it provided the necessary opportunity for me to explore something new. Because of this, I came into the PhD program with an open-mind to learn new things.
In one of the major assignments from EDU 9002, Methodological Perspectives on Educational Research, students were asked to investigate a research construct that we were not familiar with. Having already chosen my PhD dissertation topic, I chose to investigate Afrocentricity as an alternative research methodology. Although I already knew about colonialism and how it continues to have significant ramifications within our society, I knew little about methodological approaches that challenge the Eurocentric viewpoint around objectivity, reliability and validity within the research process. Because of this powerful learning opportunity, I chose to embed facets of Afrocentricity within my pending dissertation. As I will show in another artifact (i.e., African Oral Traditional Storytelling (AOTS); see Theme 3 Artifact 2), this learning opportunity was pivotal in planting the seeds, which came to fruition later into my methodology chapter.
Knowledge is power. While I may not directly utilize Afrocentricity as my chosen methodology for my dissertation, exploring and learning different epistemological underpinnings is extremely valuable in appreciating how individuals make sense of the world. Additionally, this learning experience has aided me in supporting future aspirational researchers in the field. For example, several of my colleagues have spoken outwardly about their interest in potentially conducting research within their graduate studies. While many conveyed significant hesitations in embarking into research that would lean on gathering data from large sample sizes (i.e., positivism), artifacts such as my handout on Afrocentricity was particularly helpful in sharing with others about other epistemological approaches.
There is no doubt that advancement in research appears to hold positivism and its sciences as its ‘gold standard’ for high quality research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). I know this because, as a physicist, it was challenging at first to accept qualitative approaches. But, because of my mindset for being open to new ideas, the depth and breadth with not only the PhD program but the mentorship I have experienced, I continue to see the best in both quantitative and qualitative methodologies for answering different questions. This was not an easy road to travel on.
My choice for openly accepting and learning a wide range of epistemologies have given me the opportunity to not only challenge the colonialized and traditional Eurocentric positivistic practices which are often dominated within research and society, but it also affords me with the ability to guide others with alternative and transformative choices to help support their journeys. This is an important quality to have if I am to work in higher education after completing my dissertation.
In many ways, these learnings regarding the challenging of colonialized Eurocentric practices have manifested itself into my daily life as a high school physics educator. In my position, I teach the common Public-School Programs (PSP). Due to my familiarity with higher-level physics, I also teach International Baccalaureate (IB) programming. Prior to the PhD program, I highly regarded the IB curriculum as being top tier in secondary education. The rich academic content, rigour, and effort provides significant enrichment opportunities to support learners in post-secondary education.
This comes with the problem with IB. Despite IB’s claim in developing learners as global citizens, it remains to be seen as a curriculum which privileges Whiteness. I say this because not only is IB founded in Geneva, Switzerland and is headquartered there, but, as Chan (2020) recognized, it is “an updated form of unintended white supremacy, where rich countries and their White citizens [are] presented as the creators of civilization” (p. 4). Although programming does draw in some localized perspectives, in my estimation, it is not enough. Secondly, I draw upon the many years teaching in the IB program. While enrolment of Black learners into PSP physics education has risen under my tenure, there is a significant challenge having steady enrolment of Black learners in IB physics. Regrettably, Whiteness is the norm and so, I often question, “why do we, as a system, need to import a curriculum to claim elite education?”
As a result, I have become increasingly skeptical about Eurocentric practices. All of my actions within high school education have been scrutinized post-PhD course programming. This is a good thing because it has already affected how I teach Black learners. For example, while Sir Issac Newton famously formed his Laws of Physics, I no longer refer them as ‘Newton’s Laws.’ Instead, I refer them as the ‘fundamental laws in classical physics.’ This monumental decision was not something I would have considered prior to these two readings. I believe these experiences provoked a sense of urgency in me to act against the Eurocentric viewpoint so that my Black learners do not see them as secondary to that of Whiteness in education. They are co-creators of the knowledge in the universe and their input is highly prized and valued as we continue to explore this subject area. This experience has been a gift.
Broad familiarity with understanding prominent social and scientific and educational theoretical traditions and trends related to educational studies.
PhD Candidate (ABD) | MEd, BEd, BSc (Physics & Mathematics)