Doctoral Seminar I: Research, Theories and Issues

Brock University EDUC 7F20

Lakehead University EDUC 6020
The University of Windsor EDUC 602

COURSE OUTLINE/SYLLABUS
July 3 – 26, 2018
Lakehead University

Instructors: Dr. Lisa Korteweg, Lakehead University (BL1025, 343-8174)

Dr. Andrew Allen, University of Windsor (BL2029, 343-8704)

Dates: Tuesday, July 3 – Friday, July 26

Classroom: RC 1001 (Main campus—Regional Centre-RC), Lakehead University

Breakout Rooms: RC 1003 and RC 0005 (Regional Centre, 1st floor and basement level)
Education Library: Bora Laskin building (Faculty of Education) and Open Computer Lab (BL2001)
Office Hours: Monday to Thursday following class, by appointment with instructor

Home Page: http://www.jointphdined.org

D2L: https://mycourselink.ca

Joint Ph.D. in Education Mission Statement

Through the three fields of study, Cognition and Learning, Educational Leadership and
Policy Studies, and Social/Cultural/Political Contexts of Education, the Joint PhD in
Educational Studies Program aims to promote scholarly inquiry and the production of new
knowledge within the context of a research culture. We are committed to methodological
advances in educational research, as well as the integration of theory and practice.

DS1 Course Description

The purpose of Doctoral Seminar 1 is to introduce students to the "Big Ideas" in the fields of
education and educational research, to immerse students in the literature and history of our
discipline (the history of consciousness of the discipline), and to provide students with the
vocabulary/discourse to navigate our discipline's changes, debates and diversity of thought.
In Doctoral Seminar 1, the history and philosophical foundations of education are examined
through a focus on social justice education. Students are also introduced to qualitative,
interpretive methodologies in relation to educational inquiry and contexts. The course is divided
into three parts that are at times interwoven together. Part 1 introduces students to academe:
communities of practice or inquiry (CoPs), discourses, and habits of mind or work as well as
orients students to the Joint PhD in Education program. Part 2 focuses on the philosophical
foundations and historical consciousness (paradigms, theories, epistemologies) of the discipline
1
of educational research. Students will read and critically discuss a number of philosophical and
foundational articles. Part 3 introduces qualitative, interpretive methodologies in relation to
educational inquiry and contexts.

1. Becoming an Educational Researcher and Developing your Scholarly Identity: Thinking,

Reading, Writing and Networking as an Academic

Educational research is a broad term that is implicitly multidisciplinary and epistemologically

diverse, however, what all academic research has in common is a focus on the skills of inquiring
deeply, reading widely or generously and writing for processing one’s ideas. In DS1, we will
focus on qualitative research that emphasizes “lived experiences” in educational contexts and
how humans create meaning in their interactions with others and within the social, political,
cultural and material or embodied worlds (more-than-humans, place, Land ...). You will also
cultivate a critical-generous way of thinking about educational lived experience as we read many
diverse thinkers and write qualitatively as an exploration of your own scholarly identity and
membership in the discipline of educational research. Areas of emphasis for your development
include reading and interpreting research literature, conducting literature searches and reviews,
making research summaries and posing questions for greater inquiry, selecting among analysis
procedures. You are expected to develop and hone your academic skills of thinking, reading,
interpreting, writing, reporting and presenting academic research.

Topics to be covered in Part 1 of the course:

● Writing as daily scholarly practice
● academic networking and communities of practice (CoPs), communities of inquiry,
scholarly communities
● Sword’s metaphor of academic writing ‘houses’ or structures
● Advancing respectful research (beyond passing the Research Ethics Boards reviews)
● Publishing or making public your work (conference proposals, journals and e-journal
articles, alternatives to ‘legacy’ academic publishing or knowledge mobilization, esp.
multimodal)
● Pushing past ABD (all but dissertation) and academic writing resistances and blocks
● Making an impact beyond the university/academe (NGOs, policy lobbying, Canadian
Council on Learning, etc.)

2. The Philosophical/Theoretical Foundations of Education

The purpose of this part of the course is to acquaint students with the major writings of core
theorists in the philosophical foundations of education in cognate disciplines (psychology,
sociology, anthropology, …) and with key theorists (in social sciences: e.g., Marx, Foucault, ; in
education: e.g., Dewey, Freire, Noddings, etc.). Students are encouraged to review secondary
sources as appropriate, but the clear emphasis is on seminal texts written by several of the most
important philosophical theorists in education. Class discussions will centre on textual analyses
of key passages and syntheses of general concepts. Students are expected to: 1) improve their
familiarity with the foundational concepts, analytic frameworks, and debates that inform
educational thought and research; 2) improve their understanding of these ideas, concepts, and
debates in terms of the socio-historical contexts of the discipline in which they developed; and 3)
learn to identify and assess the assumptions and implications underlying these educational
theories. Students will also be expected to apply these theoretical perspectives to contemporary
educational problems or situations.
2
Educational theories provide us with a set of lenses through which to view and understand the
educational world. Each theorist’s perspective will illuminate some aspects of modern education
and obscure others. Each student's job in this PhD course is not to simply agree or disagree with
particular theorists, but to understand them, to apply their theoretical perspectives to a given set
of educational situations or problems, and to critically assess the usefulness (e.g., the revelatory
abilities and/or relevance) of these theories with reference to problematic or emerging issues. We
will read each theorist with an eye to their own time as well as the contemporary moment.

3. Qualitative Research Methodologies in Education

This portion of the course examines qualitative, interpretive methodologies with a focus on
locating and interrogating underlying assumptions that fuel qualitative research practice.
Assumptions to be examined include the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of the research
process and methodological approach. What we can know (ontology), how we know and value it
(epistemology), as well as how we live and act in the world (axiology), all stem from and
influence the researcher’s decisions, beginning with the research design and continuing through
to the analysis and re/presentation of data. Various research traditions will be introduced (e.g.,
Indigenous research, participatory action research, grounded theory, case study, ethnography,
arts-focused inquiry ...), as well as research methods commonly used across methodological
traditions (e.g., interviewing, observation). Students will become familiar with scholars who
have contributed to the making of the methodological canon in Education and those who critique
that assumed and embedded knowledge.

Topics that will be included but are not limited to:

● Researcher positioning
● Credibility and trustworthiness in qualitative research (methodological
rigor/defensibility)
● Gaining Access/Participation (consultation, participation, negotiation, triangulation with
research subjects/participants)
● Respectful Research Practices (methods, representation, decisions, voices/silences,
privatization/public disclosures of dilemmas)

Required Readings

In place of a required textbook for the course, we have posted required articles and
recommended (extra) readings in the below class schedule and on the course D2L site. We do
require that all assignments and public-view work needs to follow APA formatting:

American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological

Association (6th Ed. APA). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Assessment

3
Requirements for each of the following assignments are outlined below and will be discussed in
great detail in class and posted on D2L prior to the due date. Note that full attendance and
participation are also required for successful completion of the course. The course runs for 4
weeks (July 3 -July 26). Instructional, in-class time will vary, but mainly run from 9:00 am - 1:00
pm, Monday - Friday. We strongly recommend that time outside of class hours should be used
by students to complete reading and writing assignments. We also recommend that students
begin reading the required readings and material for the course prior to the program start on
July 3rd. Finally, we also recommend that students form informal study groups (communities of
practice/inquiry) early in the course. These groups can meet outside of class time.

I Research Journal, Academic writing, Reading responses Ongoing (during course)

35%

II Multimodal qualitative research presentations Due the last week of course

20%

III Workshopping Papers Due July 20, 2018

20%

IV Final Paper/Scholarship Representation Due August 3, 2018

25%

TOTAL = 100%

The assessment key or letter grade qualities for all four assignments is attached at the end
of this course outline.

Assignments

1. Research Journal/Reading Responses/Academic Writing Voice

DS1 will give you many opportunities to learn to think, read and write as academics.
a) First, you will write summaries (4-sentence summary template model-see D2L) for each of the
assigned readings.

b) Then, you will engage in reading responses with your DS1 peers in class discussions (orally in
groups) as well as writing responses for a D2L online writing group (pairs or triads). Although
reading responses can vary in shape and style, you are expected to write at least one posting per
day (Monday-Friday) to demonstrate understandings of core conceptual, theoretical, and
methodological knowledge as well as respond in a second posting to a peer’s ‘take’ on the
readings. The process of this reading response writing is the following:

● You need to post a reading response to your D2L writing group (pair/triad) by 5 pm on
the designated day
st
● 1 posting is your reading response to the day’s readings. Referring to the 4-sentence
summaries of the article(s), you are to write followed with one (1) interpretive paragraph
where you state/cite a focus or argument concerned with a specific concept or point
(paraphrased or short quote), with explanations, reasons or interpretations for these
selected points or issues. The goal is to be concise and clear in this writing.
4
 ● When there are two+ readings assigned, you want to connect and/or synthesize the
selected points from the different readings in a maximum of 1-2 (concise) paragraphs and
relate/synthesize these points to the day’s topic
● You must use correct APA (6th Ed) for both the references (mini-list) and the in-text
writing of the posting.
● You want to practice and demonstrate a developing academic voice by employing
academic writing style and conventions (i.e., Gerald Graff academic writing tips; or
Birkenstein & Graff’s guide, They Say/I Say).
● You then post a reply (posting #2) to a peer’s reading response in your writing group any
time after 5 pm but before midnight.

c) And, you will also write entries of a personalized research journal that documents your own
developing academic voice. A basic tool of researchers, the journal (or notebook) provides a
space where researchers think through their own research ideas, build on previous experience
and knowledge, delve into new academic terrain and explore questions of methodology and
method. The journaling that begins in this course can continue throughout the various stages of
the program, culminating in a documented work of your own doctoral journey—from novice
researcher to completed PhD academic.

Journal entries can be focused in numerous ways and structured possibilities will be offered as
writing opportunities at various points during the course. In the DS1 course, you need to show all
the 4-sentence summaries of the assigned readings in this journal, as well as document your
ideas, questions and interpretations of the course readings (think of an annotated bibliography).
WE highly recommend that you start the assigned readings and the 4-sentence summaries (1
summary per assigned reading) during the month of June in order to focus on your writing and
interpretations during the actual in-class session. In the research journal, you are to try a variety
of writing approaches and representations and date each entry so that we/you can trace the
progression of your own developing academic understandings and scholarly expression.

The journal is an ongoing activity that will culminate in a variety of texts that will be submitted
through the D2L Dropbox at three points during the course (1st Friday, 2nd Friday and then the
last day of the course). The contents will be evaluated using the assessment rubric for the course.
Details relating to the research journal will be discussed and negotiated as the course progresses.

2. Work-shopping Our Papers

The three goals of this assignment are as follows: 1) to demonstrate your ability to orient to and
navigate the field of educational research in relation to a specific question, topic or problem area;
2) to participate in a type of roundtable workshop forum which is a standard practice of most
academic conferences (AERA and CSSE); and, 3) to participate in a peer review and editing
process which is a standard practice of journals and other research publications.

In this assignment, you have the opportunity to shape your reading of the field of educational
research, present your thinking and argument outline of a final paper for DS1, and engage in
critical-generous (generative) discussions with your peers and an instructor via both tracked
feedback on the draft/workshop e-paper as well as face-to-face discussion. These three stages are
all part of the assignment’s requirements and assessment: 1) effective substantive oral
presentation on your paper/argument; 2) the content and writing (structure) of the draft paper;
5
and, 3) generous/generative feedback and critical (constructive) engagement in the discussions
and reviews of both your own paper and those of your peers.

The draft paper should be approximately 10 pages in length (Times New Roman, 12 point, Word
or RTF document, double-spaced). It should outline and review arguments and issues in the field
(a type of literature review) related to your particular question, topic, or problem statement. The
reference list that closes your paper is very important and not counted in the 10-page count
(remember, a reference list is required as per the APA guidelines and all sources must be located
as references in the paper – unlike a bibliography). Also, important in your writing and
presentation is a strong background or introduction section where you explain a rationale as to
why your topic, question, or problem area deserves a final paper treatment (i.e., its relevance as
an educational topic, problem or question – or an answer to the question “So what?”). See and
follow the 4 steps to clarity of purpose writing (D2L) in the first paragraph or ‘thesis statement.’

This workshop/draft paper is due Friday July 20th. For this date, you need to have posted your
paper on the D2L to be reviewed by three or four of your DS1 peers and one instructor. During
the weekend (Saturday, July 21st– Sunday, July 22nd), you will be responsible for two tasks: 1)
the preparation and practice of your own 10-minute oral presentation on your draft paper; and, 2)
the written response and question preparation for two of your peers' papers (while you will
receive all three-four papers to read, you are only expected to provide a written response for two
peers). Your instructors will designate for which papers you are required to prepare oral and
written feedback or reviews. On the day of the workshop, we ask that you bring hard copies of
your comments/questions – one for the student-presenter and one for the instructor (2 copies per
student-designate = 4 papers that you will hand in on Monday July 22nd).

On Monday July 22nd, we have reserved the whole day for the roundtable workshops. You will
be in a group of 4-5 doctoral students (including yourself) and one instructor for four-five 30
minute presentations--either in the morning or afternoon. Each presentation will include the
following parts: 1) a 10-minute oral presentation by the DS1-presenter; 2) a 10-minute feedback
session by peers (particularly the designated peer reviewers and instructor); and, 3) a 10-minute
wrap up for the student-presenter to ask questions of the peer readers and instructor.

3. Qualitative Research Methodology Multimodal Presentation (in pairs or triads)

With a partner(s), you will prepare a 20 minute in-class presentation to teach your doctoral peers
on a specific qualitative research methodology, selected from the provided list (July 19) and in
consultation with and confirmed by the instructors. Your multimodal presentation needs to
deliver an engaging and accessible briefing or tutorial on one specific qualitative methodology.
The presentation needs to include the following components:

● a history of the methodology,

● the rationale for the use of this research tradition (methodology)
● the kinds of research question(s) it is best suited to answer (use examples)
● its key theorists or noted methodologists (genealogy),
● key terms or concepts,
● strengths and limitations, and guidelines for doing a qualitative study using this tradition

Your presentation should focus on the application of the methodology, discussing (at minimum):
a) what the approach is; b) how one might carry out research using the approach; c) why it is
6
useful; d) who might benefit from research using this approach; e) where we might find
examples of such research; f) when is it most appropriate to use; and g) limitations/critiques of
this approach. You will need to share your presentation (PPT, Prezi, Google slideshow) on our
D2L as well as post a 1-2 page(s) document that summarizes the methodology and key points of
your presentation. The aim here is to introduce, review, and critique the core aspects of the
specific methodology and to generate informed discussion about the approach by exploring its
foundations and application through class discussion.

We would also ask that you prepare a series of probing questions or ethical dilemmas, along with
scenarios or case studies designed to take us through key constructs or elements of the
methodology to ensure that you actively involve our participation. Just “telling” us the
methodology through a long PPT lecture is not an exciting or engaging communication method.
We also ask that you rehearse with your partner/pair and remain vigilant of the timing (i.e., make
contingency plans for what to shorten/omit if an activity goes brilliantly and takes more time
than expected. Please remain flexible :)

4. Final Paper

Choose a topic for a 20 to 25 pages (max) final paper that has a scholarly focus but can also
include a multimodal representation of some type. Remember that an academic focused paper
needs to include conceptual, theoretical, and/or methodological framework(s) that are drawn
from current literature in the field of education. Choose a topic that you think (at this early stage)
you might like to continue to research as part of your doctoral program (and could be
incorporated into portfolio work ...). Prepare an outline and first draft of the paper for the
workshop (due July 20th, 2018 – see assignment outline above), incorporate and/or address the
feedback received during the workshop, and submit a final version of the paper to the D2L
Dropbox for your instructors by August 3, 2018.

Midway through July, you will receive feedback on your paper from your peers and instructors
(care of the work-shopping our papers assignment). Incorporate, as appropriate, the feedback you
receive into the final version of your paper and remember that academic writing is revising, re-
thinking, and more editing … Your paper should be double-spaced, Times New Roman 12-point
font and 1” margins all around. APA formatting (6th Edition) is also required. Please submit the
final paper via the D2L Dropbox in Microsoft Word format (or RTF).

Doctoral Seminar 1 Classes & Required Readings Schedule

TUESDAY JULY 3, 2018
8:30 – 10:00 Orientation Breakfast in the Faculty Lounge

10:00–1:00 Introductions, the Joint PhD Program, Course Outline, Class Schedule,
Assignments, 4-sentence summaries, Backwards Planning your PhD Journey,
D2L navigation tutorial and workshop
12:00? Lunch Hour-- if guided tour of LakeheadU campus (TBD) at 1:00 pm

7
WEDNESDAY JULY 4, 2018
9:00-11:00 Orienting Ourselves to the Discipline of Educational Research
Required Readings-1 for Class:

● Lagemann, E. C. (1997). Contested Terrain: A History of education research in the United

States, 1890-1990. Educational Researcher, 26(9), 5-17.
o [Recommended: Watch the 3:36 min video: Ellen Condliffe Lagemann-Future
Major Issues in Education and Education Research in AERA-D2L Folder]
● Meier, D. (1999). Needed: Thoughtful Research for Thoughtful Schools, In Lagemann,
E. C., & Shulman, L. S. (Eds.). Issues in Education Research: Problems and
Possibilities, pp. 63-82. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
● Biesta, G. (2007). Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence- based practice and the
democratic deficit in educational research. Educational theory, 57(1), 1-22.
● Richardson, L. (2001). Getting Personal: Writing stories. Qualitative Studies in
Education, 14 (1), 33–38.
● Pallas, A. (2001). Preparing Education Doctoral Students for Epistemological Diversity.
Educational Researcher, 30 (5), 6-11.
Recommended (optional) Readings:
● Greenwood, J. (2018). The where of doctoral research: the role of place in creating
meaning. Environmental Education Research, 24(1), 129-144.
11:00-1:00 Doctoral Seminars 1 & 2 Joint Session: Digital Tools of Research-Education
Library Workshop

THURSDAY JULY 5, 2018

9:00-1:00 Overview of the History and Epistemological Diversity of Theories in
Educational Research (the Short-Cuts Hist-Con Guide-chart, 4-sentence summaries)
Required Readings-2 for Class:
● Dewey, J. (1916). Chapter 7: The democratic conception in education. In Democracy and
Education. Pennsylvania: Penn State, 85-104.
● Freire, P. (2009). From pedagogy of the oppressed. Race/ethnicity: multidisciplinary
global contexts, 2(2), 163-174.
● Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research
in education as a wild profusion. International journal of qualitative studies in education,
19(1), 35-57.
● Britzman, Deborah P. (2000). Teacher education in the confusion of our times. Journal of
Teacher Education, 51 (3), 200 – 205.
8
FRIDAY JULY 6, 2018
9:00-1:00 Historical-Philosophical-Theoretical Foundations of Social Justice Education:
Required Readings-3 for Class:
● Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive
myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard educational review, 59(3), 297-325.
● Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Re-inventing Self and Other in Qualitative
Research. In Denzin & Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
● Delpit, L. (1998). Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s
Children. Harvard Educational Review 58 (3), 280–298.
● Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for
democracy. American educational research journal, 41(2), 237-269.
** NOTE: Hand-in Research Journals-Entry I (Due by 5 pm in the D2L Dropbox)

MONDAY JULY 9, 2018

9:00-1:00 Indigenous Research/Decolonizing/Indigenist Theories
Required Readings-4 for Class:

● Absolon, K., & Willett, C. (2004). Aboriginal research: Berry picking and hunting in the
21st century. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 1(1), 5-17.
● Smith, L. T. (2005). On Tricky Ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty.
In N. K.Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd
Edition, Chapter 4, 85-108.
● Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization:
Indigeneity, education & society, 1(1).
Recommended (optional) Readings:
● Dion, S. D. (2007). Disrupting molded images: Identities, responsibilities and
relationships—teachers and indigenous subject material. Teaching Education, 18(4), 329-
342.
DION ASSIGNED/REQUIRED READINGS FOR KEYNOTE
● Burnett, C., & Billiot, S. (2015). Reaching harmony across Indigenous and mainstream
research contexts: An emergent narrative. Journal of Indigenous Social Development,
4(1), 1-15.

9
 ● Dion, S. D., & Salamanca, A. (2014). inVISIBILITY: Indigenous in the city Indigenous
artists, Indigenous youth and the project of survivance. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 3(1), 159-188.
2:00-4:00 SUSAN DION KEYNOTE PRESENTATION: ATAC-1001 (WITH LIGHT REFRESHMENTS
SERVED AT 1:30 OUTSIDE ATAC-1001)

TUESDAY JULY 10, 2018

9:00-10:30 DR. SUSAN DION VISITS THE DS1 CLASS

11:00-12:30 Critical Race Theory, Interrogating Diversity/Multiculturalism, and Critical

Whiteness
Required Readings-5 for class:
● Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice
field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11 (1), 7-
24, DOI:10.1080/095183998236863
● Daniel, B-J. (2018). Teaching while Black: Racial dynamics, evaluations, and the role of
White females in the Canadian academy in carrying the racism torch. Race, Ethnicity and
Education, DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2018.1468745
● St. Denis, V. (2011). Silencing Aboriginal Curricular Content and Perspectives Through
Multiculturalism: “There Are Other Children Here.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies, 33 (4), 306-317, DOI:10.1080/10714413.2011.597638
● Carlson, S., Gerhards, J., & Hans, S. (2017). Educating children in times of globalisation:
class-specific child-rearing practices and the acquisition of transnational cultural capital.
Sociology, 51(4), 749-765.
Recommended (optional) Readings:
● Slater, L. (2016). Questioning Care. In A. Hickey (Ed.), The Pedagogies of Cultural
Studies, Chpt. 7, pp. 116-130. London, UK: Routledge.
● Gallagher, K. (2016). Can a Classroom Be a Family? Race, Space, and the Labour of
Care in Urban Teaching. Canadian Journal of Education, 39(2), 1-36.

WEDNESDAY JULY 11, 2018

Membership in the Field of Educational Research

9:00-11:00 Working through a contemporary consciousness of educational foundations

(or locating/situating where your work fits)

Required Readings-6 for class:

10
 ● Wolgemuth, J. R., & Donohue, R. (2006). Toward an inquiry of discomfort: Guiding
transformation in “emancipatory” narrative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 1022-
1039
● Greer, R. R. (2011). Reporting results to a skeptical audience: A case study on
incorporating persuasive strategies in assessment reports. The American Review of Public
Administration, 41(5), 577-591.

● Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting oval pegs into round holes: Tensions in evaluating and
publishing qualitative research in top-tier North American journals. Organizational
Research Methods, 11(3), 481-509.

11:00-1:00 Doctoral Seminars 1 & 2 Joint Session (Title--TBD/TBA)

THURSDAY JULY 12, 2018

Introduction to Qualitative Methodologies/Inquiry
9:00-1:00 Introduction to Qualitative Research (history, theories, concepts, issues)
Required Readings-7 for class:
● Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and
Indigenous methodologies, Introduction, pp. 1-20. Sage.
● Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd
Edition). Epilogue, pp. 1115-1126, Sage.
● Gallagher, K. (2008). The art of methodology: A collaborative science. In K. Gallagher
(Ed.), The methodological dilemma: Creative, critical, and collaborative approaches to
qualitative research, Chpt. 4, pp. 67-81.
Recommended (optional) Readings:
● Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic
qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods, 2(2), 1-13.
● Watt, D. (2007). On Becoming a Qualitative Researcher: The Value of Reflexivity.
Qualitative Report, 12(1), 82-101.
● Russell, C. L. (2006). Working across and with methodological difference in
environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 12(3-4), 403-412.

FRIDAY JULY 13, 2018

CANADA RESEARCH CHAIR OR FOS PANEL (TBC)
9:00-10:30 Presenters Panel
Break

11
11:00 -1:00 Introduction to Qualitative Research--continued
Academic writing for Workshop Paper Topics-Lit Reviews, Clarity of Purpose
Paragraph & Outlines

** NOTE: Hand-in Research Journals-Entry II (Due by 5 pm in the D2L Dropbox)

MONDAY JULY 16, 2018

Methods, Practices and Representations of Qualitative Inquiry
9:00-1:00
Required Readings-8 for Class:

● Fontana & Frey. (2005). Chapter 27: The Interview: From neutral stance to political
involvement (pp. 695-727). Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd Edition)
● Kovach, M. (2010). Conversation method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child
& Family Review, 5(1), 40-48.
● Tilley, S. A. (2003). “Challenging” research practices: Turning a critical lens on the
work of transcription. Qualitative inquiry, 9(5), 750-773.
Recommended (optional) Readings:

● Brockmann, M. (2011). Problematising short-term participant observation and multi-

method ethnographic studies. Ethnography and Education, 6(2), 229-243.
● Luttrell, W. (2010). ‘A camera is a big responsibility’: a lens for analysing children's
visual voices. Visual studies, 25(3), 224-237.
● Keats, P. A. (2009). Multiple text analysis in narrative research: Visual, written, and
spoken stories of experience. Qualitative Research, 9(2), 181-195.

TUESDAY JULY 17, 2018

Conducting Respectful Research & Ethics in Educational Research
9:00-1:00 Review/share understandings of research traditions/methodologies and ethics
Required Readings-9 for Class:
● Castellano, M. B. (2004). Ethics of Aboriginal research. International Journal of
Indigenous Health, 1(1), 98.
● Guishard, M. (2009). The false paths, the endless labors, the turns now this way and now
that: Participatory action research, mutual vulnerability, and the politics of inquiry. The
Urban Review, 41(1), 85-105.

12
 ● Goldstein, L. S. (2000). Ethical dilemmas in designing collaborative research: Lessons
learned the hard way. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(5),
517-530.
Recommended (optional) readings:
● Tilley, S. A. (1998). Conducting Respectful Research: A critique of practice. Canadian
Journal of Education, 23 (3), 316-328.
● Huber, J., & Clandinin, D. J. (2002). Ethical dilemmas in relational narrative inquiry with
children. Qualitative inquiry, 8(6), 785-803.

WEDNESDAY JULY 18, 2018

9:00-10:45 Ethics, Indigenous Ethics, School-based Ethics and Respectful Research in
Qualitative Methodologies--continued

11:00-1:00 Joint Doctoral Seminar 1 & 2: The REB/Ethics, Respectful Research,

Indigenous ethics in Education

THURSDAY JULY 19, 2018

Qualitative Research Methodologies--continued

9:00-1:00 Considering the array and proliferation of qualitative methodologies; Choice of

methodologies, group work inquiry into one qualitative methodology, multimodal
re/presentations in/through/of qualitative research

Possible Qualitative Methodologies to choose from:

● Indigenous research
● Photovoice/Photo Elicitation and Visual Methods
● Digital Methodologies
● Poetry and Arts-based/focused Inquiry
● Critical Ethnography (D. Foley & A. Valenzuela, 2005; Michelle Fine, 2004)
● Qualitative Case Studies (Robert E. Stake, 2005)
● Grounded theory (K. Charmaz, 2005)
● (Youth) Participatory Action Research (Cammarota & Fine, 2010; S. Kemmis & R.
McTaggart, 2005)
● Narrative Inquiry (S. E. Chase, 2005; Clandinin & Connelly, 2000)
● Autoethnography (S. Holman-Jones, 2005)
● Other qualitative methodologies (to be confirmed with instructors)
We also recommend that you peruse and reference the following qualitative research handbooks,
encyclopedias and guides that address or best match your selected qualitative methodology. The
following handbooks are extremely useful for locating key theorists, issues and references for
qualitative methodologies:
• Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd
Edition, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

13
 • Denzin, N. K., Tuiwhai-Smith, L., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2007). SAGE Handbook of Critical and
Indigenous Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Tilley, S. (2016). Doing respectful research. Power, privilege and passion. Toronto, ON:
Fernwood Press.
• Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts.
Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
• Smith, L.T., (2012), Decolonizing Methodologies Research and Indigenous Peoples, (2nd Ed.).
Zed Books, London.
• Gallagher, K. (Ed.). (2008). The Methodological Dilemma: Creative, critical and collaborative
approaches to qualitative research. London: Routledge.
• Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (4th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

***NOTE: Workshop papers DUE before midnight in designated D2L Boards or Folders

FRIDAY JULY 20, 2018

QUALITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS & RESEARCHER REFLEXIVITY IN QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
9:00-10:30 Guest Presenter(s) or Panel -CANADA RESEARCH CHAIRS OR FOS (TBD)
Break
11:00-1:00 a) Quality, Trustworthiness, Credibility & Researcher Reflexivity in
Qualitative Research
b) How to respond to peers’ workshop papers--Review rubric and criteria and
Schedule for Workshops, Developing academic voice through writing
Required Readings-10 for class:
● Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative
research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
● Luttrell, W. (2000). " Good enough" methods for ethnographic research. Harvard
Educational Review, 70(4), 499.
● Meyrick, J. (2006). What is good qualitative research? A first step towards a
comprehensive approach to judging rigour/quality. Journal of Health Psychology, 11(5),
799-808.

MONDAY JULY 23, 2018

9:00-12:00 Work-shopping Our Papers (2 workshop groups)
12:00 Lunch (for instructors)
1:00-4:00 Work-shopping Our Papers (Continued-2 workshop groups)

14
TUESDAY JULY 24, 2018
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY--CONTINUED
9:00-1:00
- Group work on Multimodal Qualitative Methodology Presentations
- Individualized check-in interviews for final papers with designated/workshop professor
DS1 & DS2: Wrap-up BBQ: Tuesday July 24 from 1:00 – 3:00 pm at Lake Tamblyn

WEDNESDAY JULY 25, 2018

9:00-1:00 Multimodal Qualitative Methodology Presentations
JOINT DS1 AND DS2 SESSION--TBA/TBD
NOTE: **Wednesday Evening: Doctoral Seminar 1 Social (TBC)

THURSDAY JULY 26, 2018 (FINAL CLASS)

9:00-1:00 Large Group Reflection, Backwards Planning Review, Instructors’ Closing
Remarks, Student/Course Evaluations
1:00 End of Course / Start of Holidays
** NOTE: Final Research Journals DUE (before midnight)

**NOTE: FINAL PAPERS DUE by FRIDAY AUGUST 3rd into the D2L Dropbox (before
midnight)

DOCTORAL SEMINAR 1 GRADING RUBRIC

Our assessment goal as your instructors this summer in Doctoral Seminar 1 (July 2018, Lakehead
University) is to have substantive, evaluative dialogue with each of you about your evolving/ongoing
work in educational scholarship and research at this entry PhD level. As an evaluation principle for the
four assignments, letter grades will be assigned as either an A+ (beyond the expectations); A (meets the
expectations); A-/B+ (close to meeting the expectations); B/B- (not sufficiently meeting the expectations).
Below you will see how we define the grading criteria for each alphabetic grade or category.

A+ A

• EXCEPTIONAL paper in all respects • EXCELLENT-VERY GOOD paper

• publishable quality
• contains exceptionally original and creative
ideas
• very well organized and concisely expressed
• incisive critical evaluation
• clear command of techniques and principles of
the discipline
• well organized with few errors
• shows clear understandings of concepts and
evidence of critical thought
• ability to discriminate and interpret relevant
issues
• analytic treatment of content
• application of ideas

15
• consistently exceeds expectations • synthesis—able to make connections among
• high level of synthesis disparate details or ideas
• new understandings • solid evaluation of ideas and content
• extension of content • sound manipulation and interpretation of data
• concepts and understandings grounded in real
applications

A-/B+ B/B-

• GOOD paper • ADEQUATE paper

• meets some of the above criteria
• shows basic competence in synthesis and
critical thinking
• shows competent grasp of writing and reference
styles
• adheres to proper reference and grammatical
styles
• some integration and extension of ideas
• logically organized
• constitutes baseline for graduate papers
• shows comprehension of some course content
and draws together some information from the
course in an understandable fashion
• descriptive treatment of content
• identification of some key elements
• recognition of basic facts, knowledge, and recall
• retrieval of information
• grammatically correct writing
• little integration of concepts

A “C” grade can apply to an individual Graduate credit is not given when a “C” is
assignment that does not meet B criteria assigned as a course grade

To attain our goal of substantive, evaluative dialogue with each of you, we will be commenting upon the
following categories of assessment. As a general principle, these categories are those that expert readers
of educational research/papers address in peer reviews for conference proposals, journal publications, and
scholarship or grant applications. These categories are also meant as a guide for your own self-
assessments of drafts/revisions of your writing.

Thematic/Argument Structure: Well-organized arguments. Strong introduction and conclusion. Logical

or effective argument structure. Demonstrations of how to make and justify educational ideas and claims.

Depth: Scholarly treatment of material. Connections between or extensions of scholarly ideas. Strong
analysis and creative synthesis of ideas from the material. A solid critical perspective is evidenced (with
perceptive questions posed of the material).

Thoroughness: Evidence-based or substantial arguments drawn from the academic literature and other
sources, as appropriate. Recognition of and adherence to the discourses, theories and issues of educational
scholarship.

Clarity: Conceptual material and content are presented and ordered in a way that raises questions and
draws conclusions that are relevant and meaningful. Relevance and meaningfulness refer to the writer’s
ability to employ the research literature creatively (and correctly) to support and explain choices made for
their problem or question concerning the state of research in a particular (problem) area. Vague
statements, empty stand-pointing, and clichés are avoided.

Accuracy: In writing: spelling, grammar, and sentence structure. In bibliography: Full APA citations for
referenced sources (footnotes as needed).

16