Epistemethodoligicalsurveyism

It's a talent to be able to cover all the reading in one word. Try it. It's fun, not to mention a great distraction from actually blogging.

LA: So is the sampling/surveys an example of those surveys found in the newspaper or Time magazine with their percentages about, say, the presidential approval rating? I can't even count how often I say to myself...how is (x) variable that low? Nobody asked ME this question! Now I realize that it's a generalization of the larger population by taking a sample from a calculated percentage of a smaller population. (...but is this a generalization only to that population? Then why bother if it can't be generalized to the general public?) It seems getting a representative sample is the trick and time consuming if it is to be done right. I guess my question is, what number determines a good sample and what criteria is used? The sampling selection researchers used on page 57 proved to waste their time because they took their sample from a narrower population, when they should have used a much broader list to obtain a population for their survey and then narrowed it down to provide a better representation of the general population...??? I hope I'm using these terms correctly.

Well, quite honestly, the confidence levels allude me...it's a lot of numbers, and although I understand their significance...the limits and calculations have me re-reading something I know perfectly well I will not understand 10 readings from now. ...looking forward to the facilitation and how you're going to crack that egg! Is it one of those things that is better understood when you are in the throes of actually researching and having to use your own data? I feel like I am reading instructions on how to put something together without the benefit of having the "something" to actually put together.

KS: I get the feeling that the authors feel that researchers bias their studies by not truly explaining their thought processes behind the study. Maybe bias isn't the right word...but my perception--maybe it's that researchers force a study for their own benefit...??? To prove a self-fulfilling prophecy? (248) To hide contradictions in their own studies? And only by using different methodologies can both researchers and teachers rely on the information because the outcome was proven valid through the use of of those various methods? Am I getting this? ...and although some would argue that you cannot conduct research with methods that are theoretically grounded in opposing beliefs, the authors (and Bereiter and Scardamalia) believe it is possible if a researcher uses the six levels of inquiry to gather more knowledge and build one finding upon another. But the bottom line is that every researcher enters a study with a different reality, a different set of assumptions based on their own discourse, and varying knowledge. That alone can change the way results are interpreted. That said, should a researcher disclose their biases? Is that a limitation of a study? Should it be? 257 talks about the idea that these very biases--which they refer to as self-awareness--could strengthen a study if they are revealed and the study is designed to acknowledge them, and perhaps indicate where their biases came from. The idea that researchers interact with their participants in this way can actually bring more insight to the study instead of trying to hide behind what the researcher thinks is politically correct to say or not say, or assume or not assume. I would guess that it's never a good idea to fight your own judgments, but rather try to figure out if they are accurate or not, and then change them based on truth and not assumption.