Analysis of Chapter #3, “Methodology”
Article #3 of my analysis considers Chapter
III, “Methodology,” in which the author explains her use of the interview
process, a qualitative method the advantages of which are discussed with
reference to researchers who are proponents of the method.
The following are my own analytically critical
comments.
Page 39
Scholarly
substantiation for the assertion
that “it is critical to contribute to the existing literature on African
American women in K-12 leadership roles, the impact of race and gender, their
challenges, and strategies to succeed in their roles” is lacking, and should
the critical need be established, one then needs to observe that the inadequate
treatment of the subject by Sayles-Adams fails to make a contribution to “the
existing literature.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 40
The sentence, “Participants
were identified from school districts that service elementary, middle, and high
school students in K-12 organizational settings structured for male orientation,”
lacks explanation and verification.”
Staff at many schools,
particularly at the elementary level, are dominated by women; in what way, then, they are “structured for
male orientation” should be specified.
If the setting is in fact the district-wide organization, then this
should be clarified and the assertion similarly explained.
………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………….……………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 40
The sentence,
“Conducting a study on the lived experiences of African American women leading
K-12 schools attributed to the researcher's personal and professional
experiences,” as written is a sentence fragment.
The problem
may be with the use of the words, “attributed to,” rather than a suitable
combination, such as “resonated with” or “recalled similar experiences of the
researcher.”
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 41
The sentence, “Current research
in this field is limited to African American female principals, and their
unique lived experiences are unknown to many,” is unclear.
Perhaps the meaning is given
with the following rewording.
My research for this
dissertation is limited to African American female principals, whose
experiences are not well-covered in the literature.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 42
The seemingly intended meaning
of the following sentence, “Qualitative research also maintains people
interpret and understand their individual experiences and that there is no
shared reality for people (Patton, 2014),” would be clearly conveyed as
follows:
“Proponents
of qualitative research also maintain that every individual interprets her or
his individual experiences, so that each
person’s perception of reality is unique;
proponents argue that qualitative research best captures these vital
interpretations and perceptions of individual experience (Patton, 2014).
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 42
The sentence, “This study did
not attempt to derive a theory from the participants' lived experiences
characterized by the grounded theory; thus, the study extended beyond the
singular focus of culture as purported in ethnographies (Creswell, 2003),” is
garbled and needs explanation.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 49
The rendering of the word,
“researchers,” in the sentence, “Throughout the data analysis process, all
recorded interview data from participants were examined; and themes were
identified from the researchers' notes to separate the participants'
experiences (Bree & Gallaher, 2016), should be “researcher’s” to refer to
one researcher (Sayles-Adams), not to multiple researchers.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 50
The sentence, “Hsieh and
Shannon (2005) stated, “The main strength of a directed approach to content
analysis is that of existing theory can be supported and extended,” but “newly
identified categories either offer a contradictory view of the phenomenon or
might further refine, extend, and enrich the theory” (p. 1283), has two
problems:
1) The word, “of,” in the phrase, “that of
existing theory” is errantly included, so that the sentence should read, “Hsieh
and Shannon (2005) stated, “The main strength of a directed approach to content
analysis is that existing theory can be supported and extended,” but “newly
identified categories either offer a contradictory view of the phenomenon or
might further refine, extend, and enrich the theory” (p. 1283).
2) The assertions in the sentence need scholarly
discussion as to their validity and relevance.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 51
With regard
to the sentence, “Validation occurred through examination, peer review, and
member checking to validate the study (Creswell, 2013),” the evidence for “peer
review” of Sayles-Adams’s research is lacking. Review of a scholarly work by the members of
one’s doctoral committee is not typically included as “peer review,” so that if
a doctoral thesis is submitted for publication as a book, the work would
usually be sent to peer scholars in the given field who did not sit on the
candidate’s committee.
And in the case of this
abominably written dissertation, genuine peer review was greatly needed.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 52
Sayles-Adams
gives no evidence for having established a “trustworthy rapport” with her
participants.
As with much
of this discussion, Sayles-Adams is merely giving the expectations for the type
of qualitative phenomenological study that she is conducting and, without
evidence, claiming that she is meeting those expectations.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 52
Why would the
printed transcripts be destroyed?
If interviews
are worth conducting, scholars and journalists typically keep such transcripts
as scholarly reference materials.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Gary Marvin Davison Comments
Page 55
The claim
that any part of this dissertation was peer reviewed is again spurious.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
No comments:
Post a Comment