Another bibliography
Just thought I would post a bibliography I drafted for my research into list serv communication and qualitative methods research:
Draft Bibliography in no particular order:
Mann, Chris, and Fiona Stewart. Internet Communication and Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publictions, 2000.
Eschenfelder, Kristin, Robert Heckman, and Stephen Sawyer. “The Distribution of Computing: The Knowledge Markets of Distributed Technical Support Specialists.” Information Technology & People, vol.11, no.24 (1998): 84-103.
Patton, Michael Quinn. “Qualitative Evaluation Checklist.” Evaluation Checklists Project. 2003: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
(accessed March 30, 2007)
Yano, Masaharu, and Yuzo Seo. “Conflicts Among Net News Participants and Cultural Background.” Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, vol. 13, no.5 (2003): 386-399.
Anderson, Leon. “The Open Road to Ethnography’s Future.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, vol.28 (1999): 451-459.
Given, Lisa M., and Heidi Julien. “Finding Common Ground: An Analysis of Librarians’ Expressed Attitudes Towards Faculty,” The Reference Librarian, no.89/90 (2005): 25-38. Co-published simultaneously in Relationships Between Teaching Faculty and Teaching Librarians (ed: Susan B. Kraat). The Hayworth Press: http://www.haworthpress.com/web/REF (accessed: March 30,2007)
Brown, Christine and Steven MacCall. “Coping with a MEDLIB-L Service Outage.” Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 89(4) October 2001: 379-385.
Hyman, Ari. “Twenty Years if ListServ as an Academic Tool.” The Internet and Higher Education (6) 2003: 17-24.
Waldstein, Maxim. “The Politics of the Web: The Case of One Newsgroup.” Media, Culture & Society, (27) 2005: 739-763. http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/5/739
(accessed March 25, 2007)
Coyle, Karen. “The Automation of Rights.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 32(4) May 2006: 326-329. available online through Science Direct.
Frances, Lennie. “Communication: It’s Not Just a Two-Way Street, It’s a Traffic Circle!” Key Words, 12(1) January-March 2004: 4.
Hedstrom, Margaret. “Electronic Archives: Integrity and Access in the Network Environment,” American Archivist, (58) Summer 1995: 312-324.
Grimard, Jacques. “Managing the Long-term Preservation of Electronic Archives or Preserving the Medium and the Message.” Archivaria, (59) 2005: 153-167.
Meho, Lokman I. “E-mail Interviewing in Qualitative Research: A Methodological Discussion.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(10) 2006: 1284-1295.
Miller, Suzanne M., Marie Wilson Nelson, and Michael T. Moore. “Caught in the Paradigm Gap: Qualitative Researchers’ Lived Experience and the Politics of Epistemology.” American Educational Research Journal, 35(3) Fall 1998: 377-416.
Cohen, Stephen. “Anyone Can Take a Reservation.” Public Libraries, (45) January/February 2006: 29-31.
Whitney, Gretchen. “Messages Not Sent to jESSE: A Study Crushed By Its Own Subject.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 45 (4) 2004: 364-369.
Sierpe, Eino. “Gender and Participation in Computer-Mediated LIS Education Topical Discussions.” Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 42(4) Fall 2001: 339-347.
Hopkins, Judith. “The Community of Catalogers: Its Role in the Education of Catalogers.” Co-published simultaneously in Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 34(3) 2002: 375-381; and Education for Cataloging and the Organization of Information: Pitfalls and Pendulum (ed. Janet Swan Hill): The Hayworth Press.
“Indexing-Related Online Discussion Groups.” Key Words, 9(6) November/December 2001: 176,185.
Dudley, Edward. “I’m a Stranger Here Myself.” Library & Information Update, 1(8) November 2002: 27.
Updates
I keep forgetting to update this blog, but the influence of the qualitative research course got me interested in creating a wiki for my student interns who are working on a documentation project.
Take a look:
Week 9
Blog Week 9 February 27, 2007
Readings:
The use of visual images in qualitative data was interesting to read about, though not applicable in my particular research project. It was interesting that Silverman highlighted semiotics in this chapter in such depth explaining the relational meanings between colors or other visual apparitions. Conversation analysis including body language was also interesting, but will not pertain to my research this semester. The chapter looked at viewing “how tasks are accomplished” through visual means to collect, describe, and interpret data. The means of interpreting data is not terribly different from other data sets, the correct collection of it seems more problematic. The chapter on credible qualitative research sets us up for the later chapter on writing a research paper. Silverman explains popular perspectives taken in social science research to provide a persuasive and credible argument.
Silverman introduces key questions for evaluating research identified by Moisander and Valtonen on p. 275/276. Taking a tip from Joel’s page in trying to answer questions about my own research here is what I found:
1. Are the methods of research appropriate to the nature of the question being asked?
My question is how do special collections and archives build the necessary technical skills within their purview? I intend to look at education by reviewing course listings and reviews, and by conducting e-mail interviews with those who teach in the field as well as those working. I think these methods seem appropriate for answering what work has been done, how work is done, and where improvements and future needs can be identified.
2. Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge or theory clear?
Not a great body of existing work. In general I have a good basic bibliography identified about the training and education of special collections staff and plan to include archivists as well. The literature in this area is scant. My approach will be to give a history of this literature and the challenges it has already identified. Through interviews designed to ask individuals how technology could improve or alter their work I intend to add to the literature in this area. The literature on special collections in particular tends to come from interdisciplinary interest from English literature, history, communications, anthropology, and other fields.
3. Are there clear accounts of the criteria used for the selection of cases for study, and of the data collection and analysis?
I plan to highlight the Rare Book School as a particular example of a type of education offered, and specifically how information is gained by students in the intensive one-week course model. Off the cuff, this model differs from others in its attempt to be intensive and structured while offering a holistic community approach through evening lectures, field trips, and other non-class room experiences. Where possible I plan to compare this with other models if data is available. Data will be initially collected through Web sites (course reviews, perhaps recent job postings, interview data, syllabi) followed by e-mail interviews. I will be certain to clarify my selection as data is collected. The analysis portion is where I am struggling. I have not yet chosen a method or combination of methods that would be suitable to my research question.
4. Does the sensitivity of the methods match the needs of the research question?
Site visits and personal interviews would be preferable for a more complete analysis, however, given time and budget constraints the data collection methods seem adequate to gain basic knowledge. Even at the most basic level it will still contribute to the literature.
5. Were the data collection and record keeping practices systematic?
I have not collected much data yet, but I am beginning to outline the questions and identifying where I might look for naturally occurring data. I plan to do this systematically, for example defining the periods of time or nature of coursework assessed.
6. Is reference made to accepted procedures for analysis?
As I mentioned earlier, this is a difficult area at the moment. I am currently looking at Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis. I also plan to look at Performance Methodology “learning can be accomplished through doing” to see if this may also fit my question and data. I will probably use a constant comparative method as well as looking at the outliers in categories. I would certainly welcome feedback in this area.
7. How systematic is the analysis?
I hope my analysis is well structured!
8. Is there adequate discussion of how themes, concepts and categories were derived from the data?
Yes, I plan to highlight specific examples of the various models that exist and the various groups of people who have been interviewed.
9. Is there adequate discussion for and against the researchers argument?
I have more of a question than an argument-unless my argument is in the conclusion. The paper will certainly attempt to point out what I expected to find and what was actually found by conducting this study.
10. Is a clear distinction made between the data and their interpretation?
Yes, I will make my methodology section concise and leave interpretation for a later section.
The Gorman and Clayton reading about Interview techniques and record keeping will be helpful as my list of questions grows. One useful comment from G&C was being descriptive about how you ask for information or if more information than necessary was given by the researcher. In either case it may have no bearing on the eventual analysis but it serves to convey context. I plan to get my literature review done during spring break and have a list of interview questions to send to at least 25 participants.
Blog Week 9 February 27, 2007
Readings:
The use of visual images in qualitative data was interesting to read about, though not applicable in my particular research project. It was interesting that Silverman highlighted semiotics in this chapter in such depth explaining the relational meanings between colors or other visual apparitions. Conversation analysis including body language was also interesting, but will not pertain to my research this semester. The chapter looked at viewing “how tasks are accomplished” through visual means to collect, describe, and interpret data. The means of interpreting data is not terribly different from other data sets, the correct collection of it seems more problematic. The chapter on credible qualitative research sets us up for the later chapter on writing a research paper. Silverman explains popular perspectives taken in social science research to provide a persuasive and credible argument.
Silverman introduces key questions for evaluating research identified by Moisander and Valtonen on p. 275/276. Taking a tip from Joel’s page in trying to answer questions about my own research here is what I found:
1. Are the methods of research appropriate to the nature of the question being asked?
My question is how do special collections and archives build the necessary technical skills within their purview? I intend to look at education by reviewing course listings and reviews, and by conducting e-mail interviews with those who teach in the field as well as those working. I think these methods seem appropriate for answering what work has been done, how work is done, and where improvements and future needs can be identified.
2. Is the connection to an existing body of knowledge or theory clear?
Not a great body of existing work. In general I have a good basic bibliography identified about the training and education of special collections staff and plan to include archivists as well. The literature in this area is scant. My approach will be to give a history of this literature and the challenges it has already identified. Through interviews designed to ask individuals how technology could improve or alter their work I intend to add to the literature in this area. The literature on special collections in particular tends to come from interdisciplinary interest from English literature, history, communications, anthropology, and other fields.
3. Are there clear accounts of the criteria used for the selection of cases for study, and of the data collection and analysis?
I plan to highlight the Rare Book School as a particular example of a type of education offered, and specifically how information is gained by students in the intensive one-week course model. Off the cuff, this model differs from others in its attempt to be intensive and structured while offering a holistic community approach through evening lectures, field trips, and other non-class room experiences. Where possible I plan to compare this with other models if data is available. Data will be initially collected through Web sites (course reviews, perhaps recent job postings, interview data, syllabi) followed by e-mail interviews. I will be certain to clarify my selection as data is collected. The analysis portion is where I am struggling. I have not yet chosen a method or combination of methods that would be suitable to my research question.
4. Does the sensitivity of the methods match the needs of the research question?
Site visits and personal interviews would be preferable for a more complete analysis, however, given time and budget constraints the data collection methods seem adequate to gain basic knowledge. Even at the most basic level it will still contribute to the literature.
5. Were the data collection and record keeping practices systematic?
I have not collected much data yet, but I am beginning to outline the questions and identifying where I might look for naturally occurring data. I plan to do this systematically, for example defining the periods of time or nature of coursework assessed.
6. Is reference made to accepted procedures for analysis?
As I mentioned earlier, this is a difficult area at the moment. I am currently looking at Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis. I also plan to look at Performance Methodology “learning can be accomplished through doing” to see if this may also fit my question and data. I will probably use a constant comparative method as well as looking at the outliers in categories. I would certainly welcome feedback in this area.
7. How systematic is the analysis?
I hope my analysis is well structured!
8. Is there adequate discussion of how themes, concepts and categories were derived from the data?
Yes, I plan to highlight specific examples of the various models that exist and the various groups of people who have been interviewed.
9. Is there adequate discussion for and against the researchers argument?
I have more of a question than an argument-unless my argument is in the conclusion. The paper will certainly attempt to point out what I expected to find and what was actually found by conducting this study.
10. Is a clear distinction made between the data and their interpretation?
Yes, I will make my methodology section concise and leave interpretation for a later section.
The Gorman and Clayton reading about Interview techniques and record keeping will be helpful as my list of questions grows. One useful comment from G&C was being descriptive about how you ask for information or if more information than necessary was given by the researcher. In either case it may have no bearing on the eventual analysis but it serves to convey context. I plan to get my literature review done during spring break and have a list of interview questions to send to at least 25 participants.
Week 8
Week 8
February 21, 2007
Review of Readings
Silverman gives a great background on writing research papers that I will certainly refer to once work progresses. He specifically states that you will be assessed by how well you describe your data analysis and advises, “cleanly lay all of your cards on the table at the beginning.” (p.342) Another gem: “Always remember: unless you define your own sense of the limitations (and implications) of your work, your readers will do it for you.” (p.343)
The Gorman and Clayton reading was on an entirely different topic. The chapter covered group discussion techniques along with their advantages and disadvantages. This is certainly something I would refer back to if it were part of my data collection. It was useful to consider how group dynamics affect responses and immediately thought about trying this out in meetings unrelated to my research! Some of the methods are tedious such as the nominal group technique and the authors did not point out that the size of the group makes the process far longer. The chapter was interesting and reminded me of learning teaching techniques.
Project Update
In my report from last week I noted some concern about my data and after meeting with Prof. Shulman, I decided to abandon my topic as collection of data was too difficult. If anyone has use for an annotated bibliography related to coroner records please let me know!
My new topic is an extension of some previous research about Special Collections Education. Since a large portion of “learning” is conducted through short intensive courses taught at the Rare Book School (RBS), located at the University of Virginia, I am able to access some information on their web site. Specifically, I hope to look at course evaluations for several courses over a 5-10 year time period. I plan to follow this up by conducting e-mail interviews with some of the RBS faculty. This shift in topics is stressful and I am extremely thankful that some background reading was accomplished last semester. The topic will look at “education” and I will be grateful for your feedback about some of the readings in our course last semester that may be included in my work.
Week 7
Week 7, February 14th
Review of Readings
Silverman warns the researcher that to “base observation on an understanding of how people see things can degenerate into commonsensical or psychological perspectives.” (p.69) It is deceptively easy to believe that you understand the people you seek to research. Sticking to observable facts requires a good deal of discipline which has been covered in previous readings. Ethnography and its influence from anthropologists is defined by the approaches below:
1. Cognitive anthropology, how people perceive the world through communication
2. Structural anthropology, using a specific case to highlight a more generalizable social form (substantive theory to build formal theory)
The Chicago School model case study of marijuana users demonstrated the application of a specific methodology that allowed the researcher to collect useful data. This was achieved through immersion into the culture in order to both observe communication and have questions answered directly. The concept of joining a culture only to observe is debated. In some cases it is important that a researcher conceal or reveal their identity as it may affect the social phenomenon being observed. It is noted that few researchers use the public realm and it is an under utilized source of data.
The use of this observational and interactive research in information science topics was highlighted in the Gorman and Clayton book. In one specific case study the authors discuss listening to talk around them in a library office tea room by female staff. The observation that most talk that occurred was not job related was an important discovery in finding out how real library culture works at that institution. The authors could very well generalize the specific findings by pointing out any negative or positive effects non job related talk has on employees/employers and their work.
Atkinson and Hammersley provide some useful steps in developing a proper research methodology that defines qualitative research from other forms. They point out that data collected is typically not coded at the time of collection in order to prevent too much analysis before all collection activity has taken place. This is a particularly difficult concept for me as I see its value, but ,due to my own background, have some trouble holding back on judging, defining, or describing what I come across. Although coding was discussed in some detail I would very much like to see further examples to understand how to use it effectively.
Hammersley provides further discussion of ethnography and realism distinguishing what is naturally occurring from what is socially constructed by humans. If we apply a relativistic approach by stating that cultures can only be properly viewed within themselves the argument becomes circular, so it is important for researchers to define a perspective. (p.71, H&M) By declaring this perspective, Hammersley believes it provides the closest representation of reality.
The Fact of Fiction article by Van Manaan examined how information is received by the researcher who may be working with informants. He defines the data collection as first and second order conceptions and operational and presentation data. Van Manaan is quick to point out that researchers can be misled by informants, but this is sometimes valuable.
My Project
The section on defining a research problem was useful and I wish I had read it earlier on in the course (though Silverman also referred to Atkinson and Hammersley frequently). The blunt advice, “The attempt to describe things ‘as they are’ are doomed to failure, without ‘some’ perspective or, at the very least, a set of animating questions, there is nothing to report.” (p.80) My own research seems to be suffering from this as most of the literature is quantitative and the actual data are in the form of reports. It requires deep digging to consider what angle to take here. The data I have collected so far is rather scant as my research pool is confined to testimony of witnesses and family members of female suicides between 1900-1902 found within the coroner records of Allegheny County. The perspective I plan to follow is the reaction or attitude of the witness’ to the deceased. This seems possible to observe, in at least some cases, within my data pool. I have decided not to look for other patterns as much of the data (and causes of death) are similar-the commentary provided in the witness statements appears to be best suited for this kind of analysis.
Week 6
Blog Week 6
February 6, 2007
Reflection on Readings
The readings for this week included methods for historical investigation. This was covered in the Gorman and Clayton book as well as Silverman though their approaches to this type of research concentrated on their respective areas of study. For example G&C describe the study of history in terms of looking for information and evaluating sources. They include a brief background about how primary sources come into being, and attempt to draw distinctions between witting and unwitting testimony (p.165). The evaluation of certain types of documents, including autobiographies, fall in between the two types of information.
This reminded me of several cases in the past few years that have dealt with privacy rights and historic documents. Several years ago, Jackie Onassis’ priest and confident, Rev. Richard McSorley bequeathed his personal manuscript collection to Georgetown University. McSorley transcribed (or recalled and transcribed) personal and presumably confidential conversations with Jackie Onassis after the death of President Kennedy and for years after. Naturally, this sort of documentation may prove difficult from both and ethical standpoint as well as questioning the “witting and unwitting” testimony interpreted by McSorley. A brief background of the topic is available at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/13/jackie.ap/index.html
While describing the precise use of sources and questions the researcher should ask themselves, based on G&C use of Marwick’s query, “Is the source authentic, is it what it purports to be?”(p.167) It is never quite explained how a researcher can presume authenticity aside from building a logical case gathered from provenance and other historical information that may shed light on the record in question. The explanation is a good start and it was appreciated that they also touched upon this challenge in a digital environment, but it seemed inadequate because of its generality.
G&C’s emphasis on interpretation of sources was also covered by Silverman who instructs us to, “treat documents as they are and what they were constructed to accomplish” (p.169). The meaning derived from documents relies on their truth or authenticity, but a researcher could also use a constructionist approach by “using texts as topics not as resources.” This textual method of research and content analysis is detailed by Silverman who makes note of the availability of sources in the form of naturally occurring data. In my own research, I can see that I have been following this method more than the historical research methodology. The qualitative content analysis uses the actual words of the text and captures them in codes which are predesigned by the researcher. Codes may change as the researchers questions evolve.
I was especially interested to see Silverman’s use of coroner’s reports as he discusses uncertain attitude to language which is sometimes found in quantitative research. He demonstrates this through citing Durkheim’s Suicide (1951) which was viewed by Atkinson in 1978 as not truly viewing information and definitions from the context of the coroner. My own research, so far, has indicated that coroners and medical examiners did not have a common set of definitions until the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and I will be interested to read Garfinkel’s Studies in Ethnography. I think observing, in naturally occurring data, the decisions made by coroners offices in certain types of death (suicide) is the likely path my research will take.
Research Progress
I believe I have made some progress! First of all, I came to realize that my initial question for research took the wrong approach. My mistake was in identifying resources that I wanted to use (in this case the Coroner Files for Allegheny County) before I had researched enough to know what questions to ask of these records. In our class discussion last week it was also obvious that my initial ideas were too large in scope for the project this semester and that I had to consider scaling down and using naturally occurring textual documents within my control (i.e. no interviewing, etc). With this in mind I had started to search for publications that used coroner records as part of their research. It was no surprise to find that many articles and studies were from public health, medical and historical fields.
Many of the studies that have been of interest to me are found in the British Medical Journal and in journals in the field of psychiatry which often present quantitative analysis. One article, outside of those fields, reported on women and suicide from a historical perspective (Kushner, Women and Suicide in Historical Perspective, Signs, 1985, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 537-582). The article draws upon a generalizable group that may be tested by textual data from the coroner files here at Pitt. The study explores data collected between 1880-1972 that indicates suicides by women grew by decade noting an increase of 542 percent for the century.
Kushner asserts that by the time this information was gathered it was already assumed that “motivations for suicide were gender specific.” I hope to look at the use of coroner records, specifically testimony by family members and witnesses and suicide notes, to explore if motivations are revealed within the records and if so how they relate to social values during a specific time period. For example, Kushner quotes a number of Victorian era sources that support a particular motivation of suicide for women as “rejection after an illicit love affair led a despairing female to the only honorable resolution.” I do not expect to necessarily find this level of detail in the files themselves but plan to consult newspapers from the 1890s-1910 to look for accounts of female suicide deaths. I plan to compare a sampling of case files with information collected from the press to determine if this ideology was in place in Allegheny County and in particular whether there is evidence of coroner’s rulings that tied certain motives to gender.
Week 5
Week 5
I found the Gorman and Clayton readings helpful in conceptualizing the immense detail and discipline one must find in order to perform fieldwork. The lists and examples were great, and I found the note taking directions particularly useful even though this will be modified for my uses.
Over the past week or two I have noticed my own thought processes changing as a result of reading so much about observation. This has played out more in my daily work than it has so far in my research but the consciousness of observation and attention to detail really allows for a more objective view. Gorman and Clayton brought this out by discussing researcher biases and the use of the researcher as the instrument. I catch myself reinterpreting my thoughts looking for bias about information I have sought or received.
The research process is not moving forward as quickly as I had anticipated. I am still at the information gathering phase, reading around the topic of coroner’s records and their various uses (and potential uses) in research. Thinking about my original intent to use this topic, which would support a goal at work, I know that I maintain a bias about wanting to use this information source for our coursework. I continue to examine my own thinking about whether or not I am forcing a set of data to suit my personal goals, as combining my work and school project seems as though it would easier. Last semester we talked a great deal about the role of professors as entrepreneurs who must design their own paths with research goals, grants, writing, and teaching. My concern with the project is that it may not be reflective of the institution’s needs. If I were an entrepreneurial researcher, I could shop the resulting study around. A second concern is that my focus has been on the relevancy of the records themselves. Clearly they are a byproduct of the county legal system and clearly appraised by the state as permanent records, so why do I continue to advocate for their use? Most of my readings have also had to do with advocating for better standardization of these kinds of records and a keener interest from governments in managing them. I am trying not to go down too many paths looking for my “perfect” question which would provide some use to others.
As I mentioned earlier in my blog, it has been helpful to absorb information in an observant and deliberate manner and it is meaningful to realize your own reaction based on personal feelings, opinions, or biases. I am interested in the challenge of managing my own biases and my perceptions of institutional needs while considering and writing up this project, but am aware that this may not have been the easy choice of project I had once imagined.
P.S. It was also very helpful to have a better idea of “coding” which was discussed in the section about research notes with tips about keeping paragraphs short and starting new ones for each event/idea. Beginnin got see the relationship of how this works in the lab!
Week 4
Blog Week 4
Although not behind on the readings I am oddly behind on the blogging due to my multi-site work activities. I will be posting my thoughts for the previous weeks from my notes to catch up on this.
For our sample project in tomorrow’s class I have chosen a group of interviews posted publicly on the Rare Book School (RBS) web site. Last semester I looked at Special Collections Education and came across this cache of anonymized responses to all courses taught through RBS from the mid-1990’s to the present. The questions are all standardized and most elicit specific responses to the courses. I may not use this in my final research project as I had intended to design my work around the coroner case files project.
The readings for this week were instructive about the many ways and researcher perspectives that allow us to collect and assess data. Throughout the discussions it is impressed upon the reader (particularly in G/C) that there really isn’t a truly instructive method for designing research (S refers to cookie cutters) as it is entirely dependent on what is being studied. Though clear that researchers should not become overly concerned by rules and steps, both readings made suggestions in the form of lists and model case studies.
It was interesting to note that observation and interviewing are the most popular methods of data collection (G/C ch3) but is that true only within the LIS field? I was a little surprised that historical study did not play a larger role.
The discussion of reliability and validity continued from our previous readings lending some usefulness. I had trouble coming up with an example of synchronistic reliability. Member checks were mentioned as important for establishing the validity of research and it would have been nice to see how this is used.
S reminds us that data is mediated by interpretive activities and draws on Wittgenstein to explain the researchers need to “abandon rules” in order to reconstruct ideas in new ways. This chapter was full of robust examples of researchers reasoning, particularly in explaining context and relying on more than one method of data collection. S also discusses that researchers should collect data until “satisfied”-we have talked about this in class before. S spends a good deal of time on cultural nuances which really drives his point that researchers should be looking at the “everyday” situations or data rather than the newsworthy. S left off his discussion of coding and transcription just when it was becoming interesting! I never want to visit the Grand Canyon!!
New Blog
This blog will include the evolving documentation of my qualitative research as well as fulfilling course requirements for commentary on assigned reading.
