Leadership: Believing in others as a way of life

Leadership as a belief in others

there are two models of leadership that I am directly familiar with.

The first is the leadership quality model which treats leadership as a quality manifested by the leader, often composed of subordinate virtues like honesty, loyalty, competence, empathy. In this sense leadership could be considered a state of being.

The second model is one of technique usually described as a form of situational leadership in which a leader applies the appropriate technique based on a diagnosis of the situation, who the people are who are being led, and the necessary form of a successful outcome.

The idea of believing in people seems to be directly related to leadership in my experience and doesn’t fit into either category. I say this based on some personal experiences which I’ll describe.

I can think of it a number of circumstances in which my leaders believed in me and my potential . It motivated me to perform at a level higher than I thought was possible. What unites these cases is that my leader was a significant other to me, whose opinion I respected and whose approval I sought.

Another essential element was the element of risk and authenticity. I knew that my leaders trust in me had consequences for them which affirmed my belief in the authenticity of their belief because they have something to lose if they were wrong. In other words, these are not just empty words there was real meaning in the outcome.

Taken together these contributed to my motivation and determination and made the difference in my final performance.

As a leader myself I have seen the difference in trying to replicate a technique and manifesting a true inner belief in others. In my experience, your subordinates can sense a lack of authenticity a mile away.

I think the topic of belief in people is tied to leadership because it places it in a situation in which hierarchies matter, outcomes matter, risk is taken in the consequences are in doubt.

I don’t think belief in others is pure leadership quality like in the quality model because it takes on the context of the situation to establish the importance of the belief in the risk that the leader is taking. I think it’s a leadership matter because the trust must come from the leader first to be truly motivational.

It’s not something the subordinate can request or requisition but it must come flowing from the leader to the subordinate.

AP trying to do the math

The AP assigns 11 staff writers to immediately fact check Palin’s book.

They apparently haven’t yet read Obama’s book, which precludes them from asking him why he won’t admit that it was written by Bill Ayers

A reflection on action research “storytelling”

What follows is a 1st person, stream of consciousness  reflection written to my mentor & committee chair.  

I describe  what it was like to record a 10 min video “telling the story” of  some preliminary findings emerging from my action research cycles into curriculum and adult learning. 

The video is hosted  at YouTube.

It will be shown at an international conference in Athens, as part of the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) annual conference, as part of a bundle of reports from the Future(s) of Education project, an international  participatory action research network.  

Dr Alana:  

i am just glad to get it out of my head  

i had a real out of body experience recording that one;  

i  am a very effective briefer in person, because i can read the audience pretty well.  

i have recorded hundreds of mini lectures etc for my business and for use here at the college on various topics.

i have never, ever needed more than a single take to record, decent and sometimes even inspired voice-overs  until  last night and that briefing.  

I literally needed about 30 takes to get thru it; most i stopped when less than a minute into it because the tone just didn’t feel right

 i think it has to do with being a fish out of water, and the difficulty i felt in trying to tune my story for an audience i couldn’t see, but more importantly didn’t have empathy for

because the audience characteristics still feel fuzzy to me, i couldn’t call up the right tone, voice, persona to apply  

 this caused me to have almost a split personality in the moment, when i am ordinarily dialed in

 i had a “talking part” and a “look ahead part” that is concerned with shaping the transition to the next point/slide  

but now i had a disconcerting 3rd part that was trying to anticipate the possible reactions of an unfamiliar, and hard to imagine audience  

this is what made me feel so out of sorts

 until i “wore out” the last, 3d part and was able to trust in just telling the story, and accepting the vulnerability of knowing that i couldn’t know the audience, i found i just couldn’t get thru it.  

this is the same phenomenon I spoke with Prof Mike Wesch, the digital anthropologist at Kansas State University, and world thought leader on social dynamics in social media: the camera eye represents the unlimited, unfathomable infinite future of all possible audiences across time and space who can be looking in on the “telling moment”.  

in a sense, its like coming face to face with the unblinking eye of God and wondering what she is thinking  

 it is trust that lets us get thru that moment, the accepting of vulnerability, that creates the empathy that hopefully fills the story, as told, with hope.  

that’s a clumsy way of trying to express my meaning of the risk and vulnerability to “telling” and why it can be such a powerful learning moment, and why we need to model it, embrace it, encourage it, and support it. 

Your “producer’s draft” was exactly what i needed to be able to get out of my own comfortable fishbowl; 

you gave me a bridge to the audience that i could not create on my own.  

this has become an interesting reflection to me already  

please put the video on the website, and any or all of this reflection as you deem suitable  

have a great time at the conference!

A reflection on mixed methods research in adult education

Introduction

The Research Problem

The purpose of this paper is to offer one vision of developing a methodological theory of mixed methods research co-equal with that of quantitative and qualitative research. I use a case study of the US Army Command & General Staff College engaged in a redesign of its curriculum, its teaching practices and its design process itself in a period of revolutionary change while supporting a nation at war. I describe circumstances and worldviews in which I argue that only mixed methods research may be employed to simultaneously develop a deep appreciation of uncertainty, improve decision making through an appropriate gathering, mixing and analyzing of quantitative and qualitative data, and applying “learning in action” as a strategy to manage success.  I contrast the view of research  as a process of increasing knowledge for control  with a worldview of research as a learning-in-action that allows for deep appreciation of complexity but without the assertion that appreciation and research can lead to prescriptive measures of control.  I examine the merging feedback system of the CGSC curriculum redesign as a mixture of qualitative and quantitative data. The concept of “Voice” that emerges from the CGSC action research process will be described, along with a multi-phased, multi-year research plan that demonstrates the practical development of an interactive dynamic research plan that is also adaptive to interim and periodic results. The paper  reflects a pragmatic worldview as it focuses on practical outcomes inside an organization concerned with real-world results, but acknowledges the importance and utility of the other 3 worldviews described by Creswell (2007, p.6), namely advocacy/participatory, post-positivist and constructivist.

Waldrop (1992, 2008) described the emerging science of complexity in a rich description of the inter-disciplinary work developing at The Sante Fe Institute. Sixteen years later (Waldrop, 2008) he found that the pioneer days of complexity research had evolved into a rich diversity of programs in major and minor universities worldwide, with lines of business and cognitive domains each finding ways to apply the ideas of emergence, uncertainty and complexity in new and profound ways. What remained unchanged from the origins of the research were the questions of what next and so what and how much more is there and what does it mean to apply an appreciation of complexity to everyday problems and opportunities.  The field of education is only beginning to appreciate how complexity and uncertainty may change the dynamics, structure, content and practice of adult education (Siemens, 2004). Professions in particular will be challenged by educating for complexity, since deep, profound, and reliable bodies of knowledge are at the center of professional practice. Educators, themselves members of a profession, are examining what it means to educate, teach and instruct in light of an emerging awareness of complexity.

The US Army Command & General Staff College (CGSC) is a self-described “learning organization” (Senge, 2000), engaged in a revolutionary re-design of curriculum and teaching practice, with a mission to educate 1500 US Army Majors for uncertainty and complexity, while engaged in a global war on terror and in direct combat in Iraq and Afghanistan (Long, 2009). This provides an opportunity to examine reflective learners and practitioners in action (Schon, 1987) using mixed methods research and using multiple worldviews (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007).

Past Research on the Problem

Edmondson and McManus (2003) propose a structured approach to selecting research methods that fit the state of theory in a given field. Their 3 archetypes of the state of theory: nascent, intermediate and mature  are connected to qualitative, mixed methods, and quantitative research methods, resulting in an appropriate methodological fit that aims to meet the needs of researchers worldwide. Creswell(2009) offers a systematic approach to analyzing: researcher worldview, research purpose,  research questions, the state of theory, data collection, populations and situations to be studied, and data analysis in order to further refine the methodological fit  and better connect purpose with practice across all 3 methods. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, p.8) offers a functional working description of the state of mixed methods research, which proceeds from a deep review of current field practice, establishes a superb framework for classifying current choices of mixed methods research design and the means by which methodological fit may be refined, but stops at the boundary of developing a deep theory of mixed methods of research.

Deficiencies in past research and Need for Mixed Methodology

Conventional professional education processes have been adapting at an increasingly frequent rate as a consequence of Army senior leader directives and direct field feedback. The adaptive processes and decisions to date have been single issue, single iteration problem solving exercises inherited from an environment in which incremental change was the norm and most appropriate. These processes are less and less suitable as rates of required change increase and the relevance of existing processes and curriculum are increasingly called into question (Long, 2009)

Audience

The audience for this research include: staff, faculty and students of CGSC; educators of military professional schools; curriculum developers in graduate schools and organizations engaged in preparing leaders for uncertainty; scholar-practitioners of mixed methods looking to adapt practical field methods of for mixing qualitative and quantitative data; scholars examining the deep theory of the methodology of mixed methods.

Purpose

Purpose of the study, and reasons for a mixed methods study

The purpose of this study is to examine the CGSC curriculum redesign project and the emerging feedback system that guides design decisionmaking, which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data. The project can be described as intermediate theory in the Edmondson  and McManus ontology, and therefore suitable for mixed methods research since I am introducing an emerging concept (“Voice”), focusing on the exploration of theoretical propositions (the theory of mixed methods), the availability of sets of rich theory that inform the research (adult learning, decisionmaking, complexity, design, learning organizations, narrative inquiry and action research), and incorporating multiple data types and analysis (Edmondson& McManus, 2007, p.1165).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Quantitative Questions

H₁: Student satisfaction measured on the Noel-Levin Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey is not different than their reported overall satisfaction

H₂: Student education priorities measured on the Noel-Levin Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey are not different than those of faculty and college leadership as measured on the same instruments

H₃: Student education priorities measured on the Noel-Levin Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey do not vary through time in the course of the academic year

H₄: Student education priorities measured on the Noel-Levin Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey do not vary after graduation and reassignment to field units

H₅: Student satisfaction measured on the Noel-Levin Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey do not vary from satisfaction as measured by existing CGSC Quality Assurance  surveys

Qualitative Questions

What are the dominant and subordinate narratives that emerge from focus group discussions on educational priorities and practice and environment within CGSC?

How does the curriculum design decisionmaking process respond to similarities and differences in narratives that emerge from groups of students, faculty and senior leaders?

Describe the development, emergence of the construct of “Voice” from the CGSC PAR cycles, and how this prototype construct is evolving and being applied by various sub-groups within and associated with CGSC, by applying various interpretive methods of the narrative inquiry tradition.

Mixed Methods Questions

1. To what extent are qualitative insights generated from PAR cycles, focus groups, and individual interviews supported by quantitative data generated from surveys and actual use data of digital communication and collaboration mediums?

2. How are various organizational narratives constructed by sub-groups within the CGSC curriculum design process in order to make sense of quantitative data?

3.  What insights are offered by the application of  various narrative inquiry traditions? Which traditions are favored or overlooked or rejected by curriculum design decisionmakers?

4. What happens within CGSC when students and faculty are given opportunities to exercise “Voice”?

Philosophical Foundations for Mixed Methods Research

Quantitative research literature review

Student satisfaction surveys built on consumer theory (Watkins, 2009) are broadly applied in colleges and universities, and  treat students as  free-willed individuals that choose between alternatives for an educational institution and particular fields of study. They are seen as rational actors with definite expectations about what they want in their educational experience, and that satisfaction occurs when their expectations are met or exceeded. Smart, Feldman and Ethington (2006) note a decline in the attention being paid to the attitudes and behaviors of faculties, administrators, and the college and university environments as contributors to student success.(p.2.). These insights are related to the “college impact” model of student success. Applying the Noel-Levitz  Adult Student Priorities Survey leverages a robust, nationally recognized, validated research instrument whose dimensions reflect the areas of importance emerging from the CGSC Participatory action research  (PAT) study (Long, 2009) and enables  quantitative research into the existing database of historical satisfaction measures currently applied in the college’s curriculum design process.

Qualitative research literature review

The James, Milenkiewicz and Buchnam (2008) application of Participatory Action Research (PAR) develops measureable action steps that can lead to  revolutionary transformations within educational institutions.  The use of measureable qualitative and quantitative data gives power and legitimacy to the insights it generates inside an organization that values rigor and validity, while respecting the intuitive insights of qualitative research.  Prasad describes many techniques of Narrative Inquiry that offer many techniques for interpreting and making sense of qualitative and quantitative data.  Reason & Bradbury, (2008) and Clandinin, (2007), describe these disciplines and crafts of action research and narrative inquiry as having a relatively mature foundation of theory and best practices, with enough variation between sub-disciplines as to create real and significant choices for researchers . Various methodologies in each discipline can be characterized according to their own logic that connects their particular world view (Creswell, 2009), ontology, research technique, data requirements, classification and analysis protocols, and strategies for sense-making of the results of inquiry. The combination of PAR  and narrative inquiry offer a robust set of strategies for generating insightful qualitative data with connections to quantitative data sets, which make them especially useful and practical to mixed methods researchers.

Mixed methods research literature review

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) provide a broad yet detailed overview of the current state of the art of mixed methods research. They offer a working definition of the field derived from a survey of practice which proceeds from a deep understanding of high quality methods of practice, through choices of design and point to potentials  for the development of deep methodological theory. They offer mixed methods as an appropriate research strategy as a way to improve on the use of either qualitative or quantitative research alone.  In their view, mixed methods are more comprehensive, can answer more  types questions, encourages collaboration  and the deliberate incorporation of more than 1 worldview and is especially well suited for situations where practicality and pragmatism are prized (Creswell & Plano Clark 2007, p8-11).

Methods

A definition of mixed methods research

Creswell and Plano Clark (2007, p.5) define mixed methods research in the following way:

“As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing and mixing both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its central premise is that the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone”.

The type of design used and its definition

In this section I will briefly describe the theoretical shortcoming of treating mixed methods merely as a practical solution to improving upon either the qualitative or quantitative approach alone, and why a broader and deeper theory of mixed methods is appropriate for developing deep appreciation of complexity and uncertainty. I will briefly describe two different designs that would pass the test of the Creswell and Plano Clark ontology of mixed methods designs. With appropriate development, either would be approved for research within CGSC.

Comparison table  (adapted from Creswell & Plano Clark (2007)

	Design 1	Design 2
Choices	Explanatory	Exploratory
Theoretical Description	A 2 phase  design, where qual helps explain or build upon initial quan results (p.71)	2 phase design where qual results help develop or inform 2d phase quan inquiry
Description of application to CGSC	Round 1: the Noel-Levitz Adult Learner Satisfaction Survey is applied to a population, and results are tabulated, analyzed, compared against national  graduate student norms and in  a time series from the beginning, midpoint and endpoint of the academic year. Insights are developed   Round 2:  A series of focus groups and individual interviews are used to develop qualitatitive insights to  make sense of the quantitative findings	Round 1: a  set of participatory action research cycles identify areas of pressing concern to leaders, faculty and students within the college. A grounded theory is developed and constructs are defined by the community of practice, informed by theory from PAR outsiders.   Round 2: A quant survey is developed to explore deeply into issues and constructs developed by the PAR teams to cross check for validity, to confirm or deny, to support or modify the emerging grounded theory and provide the basis for future inquiries as selected by PAR teams. (Note: this is s summary of the actual process used at CGSC as the basis for this case study. The various tangents deriving from the initial rounds of inquiry generated my epistemological concerns with the pragmatic assumptions of mixed emthods)
Design notation	QUAN->QUAL	QUAL->QUAN
Justification	Needs qual to help explain significant, , non-significant, outlier or surprising quant results	Exploration is needed because:   1. no existing instrument 2. unknown variables 3. immature theory or framework Well suited for exploring a phenomenon or when researcher wants to generalize to other populations, test emerging theory or classifications (p. 75)
Variants	1. Follow-up explanations (quan results, insights need additional explanation)   2. Participant selection  (where a sampling of representative outliers are selected for follow-on inquiry)	1. instrument development model   2. taxonomy development model
Strengths	Straightforward implementation   Feasible for single researcher 2 section report of results Supports both single and multiple phase studies Appealing to quan researchers	1. easy to design, describe, implement and report   2. although initial emphasis is on qual, the quan phase makes it easier to appeal to quan audience 3. both variants supports multiphase studies well
Challenges	1. Time consuming   2. Decisions on which individuals to use by phase w/justification 3. Difficulties with IRBs 4. Deciding which results to explore 5. Specifying criteria for follow-on inquiry (before or after results?)	1. time consuming   2. difficult to specify phase 2 construct for IRB prior to phase 1 results 3. deciding up front which individuals to use in phase 2 4. which data to use in phase 2 instrument 5. deciding relevancy of phase 1 results for phase 2 taxonomy
Timing	2 phase sequential model	2 phase sequential model
Weighting	I think the QUAL(quan) model is more likely. This design relies on at least a mature enough state of theory to allow for initial quan inquiry, but we are more concerned with the interpretation and application of insights than in model or theoretical validation	the equal weighted choice is more logical; the desired outcome is an improvement to state of theory (quan) by either a better instrument or by an improved taxonomy (ontology). Yet the reliance on initial qual inquiry as a guide makes it at least co-equal to quan.
Mixing the data	Either Merging or Connecting is more likely than embedding.  Embedding implies a single phase, whereas this is defined as a 2phase design.  The improved explanation of initial quan findings is how the design could be “connected”. If the interpretation or meaning making is intended to create “rich description” then either variant of merging is logical	Connecting is by far the most logical design choice, as the 2 phases are explicitly linked; quan follows qual and the connection is either an instrument or a taxonomy.   There is a distinct “manufacturing or processing” aspect to this design, which does not seek to produce a rich description that is a blend, but rather produces a better quan framework as guided by the initial qual inquiry

Diagrams:

Research model 1: Explanatory:

Research model 2: Exploratory:

Analyzing the data:

In both models of mixed methods design the quantitative data would be subjected to power analysis, tests for relationship and causality.  The quantitative hypotheses are framed in the form of null hypotheses in order to determine if there were differences that could be attributed to a difference in instruments and what they are measuring (existing survey vs the Noel-Levitz survey); through time series tests to see if there is a treatment effect, and with the samples subjected to control variables to examine the effects of demographic, career experience, educational goals and faculty specific effects on the measures of satisfaction and importance.

Qualitative data would be subjected to thematic analysis according to the practices of the grounded theory, narrative inquiry and PAR traditions/  Narrative inquiry traditions are especially important here as outlined in Boje (2001).

Analyzing the mixed data would be drivcefn by the specific design selected as noted above.

Theoretical analysis of the consequences of choice in mixed methods design

Both designs would be interpretable as providing a deeper insight and understanding than a study restricted  to either of their individual qualitative or quantitative components. The functional definition of mixed methods (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p.5) would lead decisionmakers, particularly of the pragmatic worldview, to ‘receive the wisdom of experts” and seek to straightforwardly apply the insights based on a justifiable belief that they now knew more about what was going on, and had in some fashion reduced the amount of uncertainty about the world around them. My central argument is that there are situations so complex and uncertain that no amount of research and conclusions drawn from best practices of the traditions of both quantitative and qualitative inquiry, and the best practices emerging from mixed methods as described by Creswell and Plano Clark. In fact my use of the word “situation” in the preceding sentence, is an implied assumption that there is such a thing in the real world as a definable “situation” or problem set  which may be bounded and contained by a problem solving, decisionmaking entity. While this construct is the basis for the post positivist tradition, which has endlessly proven its utility in countless settings, it is normal for pragmatists to conflate utility with reality.

It can be argued that there is could be a tacit agreement between constructionists and post-positivists to allow each other the primacy of method and interpretation based on typical problems, and indeed much work is being done to increase cross-discipline understanding, cooperation and integration. The common assumption between these two worldviews is that the end product of such effort is a measureable increase in our knowledge of the world as it is, from which we may exert more control and prediction by having reduced the amount of uncertainty by some amount. This tacit shared assumption I submit is expressed through the research practice of pragmatists who are “naturally” drawn to the mixed methods designs and practices described so well by Creswell and Plano Clark. Given the fertile and as yet only partially explored areas best suited for mixed method research it would be natural for the deeper philosophical theory or theories of mixed methods to be postponed, much as Smart, Feldman and Ethington (2006) found a willingness for researchers to revert to their preferred and more easily measured  research domains and begin to neglect the messy and challenging issues of environmental factors affecting student success. One is reminded of the story of the man who’d lost his key in a dark alley but was searching for it under the streetlight because the light was better there.

I am arguing that there are situations where even mixed methods are properly and rigorously applied, and interpreted in best professional practice, that the insights may serve only to help decision-makers appreciate the vastness of what they do not understand, and better act within an uncertain environment, humble in their ignorance, yet moved to action from values and on the basis of principles informed by the best practice of inquiry.

It is my contention that in those situations described so aptly as “wicked problems” by Rittel & Webber, (1973) that a  deep theory of mixed methods may be developed that is co-equal to that of qualitative and quantitative methods. I argue that mixed methods not only are useful in solving less-than-wicked problems, as described by Creswell and Plano Clark,  but most appropriate to engage with uncertainty and complexity for the express purpose of appreciating deeply the current situation. The deep theory of mixed methods I anticipate would require explicit inclusion of all 4 world views, since there is no a priori basis for excluding any of the 4. I thinkit quite likely that a reasonable assumption of a deep theory of mixed methods in fact could require an explicit inclusion of the best practices of each world view in some fashion, details to be determined, of course.

The shift in epistemological  perspective seems important to me,  and which should be developed in tandem to the directions for improvements in design and pure method described by Creswell and Plano Clark.  Checkland’s application of soft systems methodology,  artfully describes  “learning towards success” in a satisfying way (Checkland & Poulter, 2006).

The best expression of the theoretical stance towards irreducible complexity intersecting the human need for the state of nature or through any objective criteria (Boje, 2001) and in the work of Hayden White (1987) concerning the relationship between narrative discourse and the historical representation. These insights are causing me to reflect deeply on my own essentially pragmatic worldview and its underlying assumptions, and lead me inevitably back to the proposition that we need the methodological theory of mixed methods developed simultaneously with that of its design choices and specific methods.

References

Argyris, C.  (2008). Teaching smart people how to learn. Boston, Harvard Business Press.

Astin, A. (1999) Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher  education.  Journal of College Student Development (Sep/Oct, 19990 (Vol 40, No 5)

Beltyukova, S. & Fox, C. (2002) Student satisfaction as a measure of student development: Towards a universal metric.  Journal of College Student  Development (Mar/Apr 2002)

Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers, and students. West Sussex, England,  John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Clark, M. & Rossiter, M.  (2008). Narrative learning in adulthood.  In S. Merriam (Ed) Third Update On Adult Learning Theory (pp 61-70). San Francisco,  Josey-Bass.

Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Dorner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Recognizing and avoiding error in complex situations. New York, Metropolitan Books.

Edmondson, A., and McManus, S. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management review 32: 1159-1176

Fenwick, T.  (2008). Workplace learning: Emerging trends and new perspectives.  In S. Merriam (Ed) Third Update On Adult Learning Theory (pp 17-28). San Francisco,  Josey-Bass.

James, E. A., Milenkiewicz, M., Buchnam, A., (2008).  Participatory action research: Data driven decision making for school leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Kearsley, G. (1997). The Virtual Professor: A Personal Case Study. Retrieved from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/virtual.htm

Lincoln, Y. (1983) Expectancy theory as a predictor of grade-point averages, satisfaction and participation in the college environment.  Annual meeting paper, Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1983.

Long, K. (2009). Participatory Action Research pilot study notes. Ft Leavenworth, KS: CGSC (unpublished).

March, J. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York, The Free Press (Simon & Schuster Inc).

Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, New York, M. E. Sharpe.

Rittel, H., and M. Webber (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning.   Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp 155-169.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P., McCabe,N., Lucas, T., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for eductaors, parents and everyone who cares about education. New York, Doubleday.

Siemens, G., (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age.  International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2 (10), 2005.

Smart, J., Feldman, K., & Ethington, C. (2006). Holland’s theory and patterns of college student success. Commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success

Taylor, K. & Lamoreaux, A.  (2008). Teaching with the brain in mind.  In S. Merriam (Ed) Third Update On Adult Learning Theory (pp 49-60). San Francisco,  Josey-Bass.

TRADOC Pam 525-5-500. (2008).  Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design.

Trochim, W. Research methods knowledge base (2006). Types of designs.  Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/desdes.php

Waldrop, M. (1992,2008). Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York, Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Watkins, T, (2009). Consumer theory in economics. San Jose State University Economics Department website. Retrieved from http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/constheo.htm.

White, H.  (1987). The content of the form: narrative discourse and historical representation. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

A Reflection on Crafting Qualitative Research Questions

In chapter 7, Creswell (2009, pp. 129-132) identifies the following general procedure and considerations for crafting qualitative research questions.

1. Ask one or two central questions followed by no more than 5 to 7 sub questions

2. relate the central question to the specific qualitative strategy of inquiry

3. begin the research questions with the words what or how to convey an open and emerging design

4. focus on a single phenomenon or concept

5. use exploratory verse that convey the language of emerging design such as Discover, seek, explore, described or report

6. use exploratory verbs that are nondirectional

7. expect the research questions to evolve

8. use open-ended questions without reference to literature or theory

9. specify the participants and the research site for the study

Background: my papers for this term are focusing on the methodology of narrative inquiry as applied to my college research setting. As part of my research I am investigating the nature of narrative inquiry and how it may be variously applied to a specific educational setting in my military college which features a strong hierarchical culture and a specific professional approach to a style of sense making through storytelling that is very powerful in our officer corps.

The specific style and use of storytelling in the military has emerged from the collective unconscious of the officer corps and can be found in our professional journals, popular magazines, lesson plans, guest speakers, lecture series and in the classroom as we describe our personal experiences in combat and try to relate them to our doctrine which serves as the basis of our professional theory of action.

Because of the power of storytelling, I want to look at other modes of narrative inquiry to see what the theory or thoeries of narrative inquiry say about choices organizations may make when using storytelling in the conduct of their daily craft. Therefore, I intend to examine the application of narrative inquiry in qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods of research. I hope to develop an appreciation for a meta-theory of narrative inquiry and a practical model to help researchers determine an appropriate use of narrative inquiry in their own research.

The basis for this interest is my literature review in narrative inquiry which uncovered at least 20 different ways in which narrative inquiry is broadly used in the field, each with with its own distinct flavor, perspective, timeframe, point of view, purpose and methodological techniques. I want to examine where on this emerging methodological map the Army’s particular style of storytelling fits and to see what other insights and applications may be gained by looking at other implementations of narrative inquiry.

Since the next paper in this series is the qualitative sketch, this week’s posting focuses on qualitative research questions. Bearing in mind Creswell’s procedural advice, here are my qualitative questions concerning narrative inquiry applied to qualitative research.

1. Central question: how does storytelling affect the educational environment in our college?

(I use the term storytelling rather than narrative inquiry to keep the central research question jargon free and theory neutral. I will ask this question in a non-formal way and you storytelling as an open ended construct to give the interviewee maximum freedom to perceive in their sense making and personal storytelling).

2. 5 to 7 sub questions:

a. How does storytelling affect you personally as a teller or a listener?

b. Describe any personal experience with storytelling that made a difference to you or to others?

c. Describe how you see or hear others using stories in the college environment.

d. What effect do you see or hear stories having on our professional literature in journals, magazines or doctrine?

e. How have stories affected the classroom experience of students, faculty or senior leaders?

f. How significant are stories in the overall educational experience of our college and profession?

g. How do you see or hear stories being told? In what style and in what medium?

h. What are the strengths and weaknesses of storytelling as a means of making sense of our profession?

(I’ve tried to keep the sub questions centered on storytelling as a phenomenon and am asking the interviewee to describe its effects, its processes, its locations and its context. With the last couple questions I have asked for them to conduct some analysis and judgment to make meaning about this mode of sense making. I would expect that with these base questions a rich conversation about the culture of storytelling will emerge from individual interviewees)

3. Because the questions asked for open and the descriptions I believe they allow the emergent quality of the research to develop.

4. I am focusing on a single concept of storytelling as a phenomenon.

5. I am using exploratory verbs .

6. I am using non-directional questions to let the interviewee make value and directional judgments.

7. In the multiple cycles of participatory action research I have conducted to date, I have seen firsthand how the research questions morph and evolve over time. Cresswell is exactly right.

8. I have minimized the connection to theory except possibly in the sub question H, where I’ve introduced the words ”making sense”, which are related to the technical term of art “sense making”. This might be pushing the idea that storytelling is a sense making process but since this is the last question and the theory is not unusual, I feel justified in asking it.

9. The context of these research questions are the U.S. Army command and Gen. staff College at Fort Leavenworth Kansas, and members of the students, faculty, curriculum developers, administration and senior leadership along with interested parties in military education across the Army.

References:

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Developing emotional intelligence: a challenge for 21st-century education

In many organizations with a strong hierarchical culture, we place a premium on the deep insights and reflective learning of our most senior leaders. In these organizations it makes a lot of sense in conventional times to value their insights above all others.

It would be normal in this kind of organization when faced with a challenge or problem, for the leader to think deeply and reflect upon his experience and come up with a design for a strategy that will lead the organization to success.

This kind of leader would typically assemble his staff and asked them specific questions for information he believed he would need in order to made the best decision possible. His staff would normally then go out to find the answers to these few questions and report back quickly with the required information.

Receiving the required information, the leader would then integrate these into his plan and produce the final solution and the organization would proceed into the execution phase of operations.

Under conditions of uncertainty however, the strategy for information gathering is not sufficient area when the world is so dynamic that the long and colorful history of the leader no longer applies to the uncertain future, then his deep insights actually are harmful to the cause.

Senior leaders in conditions of uncertainty must therefore actively encourage their staff to provide their deep insights which are developed from a close working relationship with the world. This later must set aside his seniority and generate the conditions whereby a team-based approach to learning and problem solving can be applied.

The more entrenched the hierarchy has been in the culture, the harder it will be for the leader to create those conditions. He must set aside his high rank and become emotionally vulnerable by revealing the limits of his knowledge and encouraging his subordinates to speak out especially when their ideas are different than his.

This form of emotional intelligence is not a natural condition for senior leaders to have developed in a hierarchical culture and makes the need for leader education in the new way all the more important as we look forward to an increasingly uncertain and dynamic future.

Profitable ETF Trading Techniques; 10 qualities of a good Mastermind group

What can a mastermind do for you? Why should  this be part of your trading practice? What are the qualities of a good mastermind? 

Trading can be a very lonely profession particularly with online trading through a deep discount broker. At the same time trading places tremendous psychological pressures on you to win or at least not lose.  Especially if you are counting on the win today to pay for your lifestyle. If you are in big markets, going against well capitalized institutions with the best in equipment, training, talent, research and size it can quickly become a lonely dark place. 

The good news is  that a mastermind can develop into a powerful ally for you. A good one will have some or all of the following qualities, at a minimum: 

1. The group will have a charter, with a purpose and mission statement

2. Group members will treat each other with dignity and respect, and be genuinely committed to share their best practices with others

3. Members will listen carefully to advice, and will treat it as an offer to help.

4.The group will be flexible in its approach to solving the unique needs of its members

5. It will help with a structured, disciplined approach to exchanging, recording and archiving information in a professional manner.

6. It will not just be a social club, although it will have a social component.

7. The traders will consider the whole person concept and not simply be focused on the relentless pursuit of money.

8. The group will demonstrate and support a professional work ethic

9. Sensible use of technology will enable the group to collaborate efficiently and effectively through the web.

10. Group members will take care to enforce their standards of conduct with all members. 

You will notice that there is a good mix of social and professional values and virtues as well as a description of how to exchange technical information. The Mastermind’s social power may be even more important than the technical trading aspects of the markets, which can be simplified into a robust set of trading systems and principles for most people. 

In future articles I will describe how to find a mastermind to join or how to create and maintain one with a group of friends and colleagues.

Force Generation curriculum project update

In one of our top level curriculum review meetings yesterday, our Deputy Commandant mentioned in his concluding remarks that there was a real “buzz” in the Army among the senior leaders concerning “Force Generation”, and he attributed it to the initiative I have been describing here which is holding out a lot of promise for transformative change.

This is before I even briefed him on the next phase, which is a survey/questionaire that we designed this week with our Quality Assurance Office and CGSS. Through the survey instrument, we’ll invite 1500 current students and 3000 graduates of the last 2 years to solicit : (1) their most important questions, (2) what they know that other students should know, (3) the problems they are experiencing with the force generation process in the field, (4) their best advice for solving problems, and (5) their interest in being part of the design team to craft curriculum to address the questions and problems.

We’ve already made contact with the Army proponents for each of the top level processes that govern the Army Force Generation process: policy, materiel, personnel, funding, training, and synchronization, and they have committed to helping us answer the questions that the students generate, as well as maintaining an ongoing knowledge base in the form of a wiki and a student text that will be widely available to Army units to reflect the most current wisdom associated with this process.

I see the wiki, the student text and our college as being the infrastructure that connects the educational needs of our officers with process experts from the generating force as well as the practical expertise that resides in the action-oriented leaders of our units in the field. I expect we’ll continue the survey as an annual instrument designed to ensure that our ST, wiki, and curriculum remain as adaptive as ARFORGEN is dynamic.

By staying connected to our officers’ stated educational needs and incorporating the best knowledge from experts and practitioners we intend to be relevant and adaptive as a department and college. When the day comes we no longer get urgent questions or significant problems identified that surprise us, we may conclude that we have a manageable ARFORGEN process. (There are more than a few things in the Army that are manageable but still hard )

In a classroom study group next week with volunteer students we will begin the design of the ARFORGEN wiki and Student Text “knowledge artifacts” that will represent our current consensus knowledge on the many complexities of ARFORGEN.

We think we can distribute the survey by 1 April, receive the bulk of input by 15 April, forward bundles to proponents by 1 May, be ready to populate the wiki and STs with initial answers by our 12 May ARFORGEN worksop at Ft Leavenworth, have a robust ST and wiki by 1 Aug, be ready to support curriculum for the 10-01 class, and then continue to refine the process and product through staff work and attention to detail.

Reflecting on Mentoring and counseling

the faculty i respect the most at our college are the ones who voluntarily take on the challenge of being a faculty advisor and engage the students in one on one educational and career counseling.

there is a move afoot in the Army to formalize and systematize the mentoring “program” across the force, and I hope that it doesn’t take hold though, as a formal process which then will get measured and assessed.

In my judgment what has made mentoring a very high quality experience for me (on both sides of the event) has been the voluntary aspect of it, and the freedom of the junior to seek out a meaningful or respected senior that is outside of the chain of command.

I have always considered it to be a badge of honor to have been selected by juniors, from afar, to help them through career choice points etc. It let me know I must be doing something right.

I have tried to carry on this idea as a faculty advisor on graduate monographs and have been honored by having students that I have taught, and also not taught, to review their work.  It’s  my highest priority work effort, and the one I am the most diligent with;  more so than even my own reseach I think.

I’d be disappointed if we started to measure how many mentor relationships a senior offier had and if we made it a compulsory program.  Would send the wrong message entirely.

I was speaking with a trusted and respected friend, an Army Command Sergeant Major serving in the field, and he echoed some of these same concerns.  To the extent we formalize it, we begin to lose the real value of it.

National Futsal tournament in Kansas City: Day 1 lessons

Well, the 2 Saturday games are over and we walked into a buzzsaw  

The first team was a travel team from Dallas that just finished winning a Disney sponsored 3v3 national tournament. 11-0 was the final, but  we had long stretches where we played them even.

The 2d game was against the best Division 1 team in KC. They beat us last year 23-0. This year the score was 10-1.

At halftime, down 8-0,  we installed a new defensive scheme and decided that our aim for the remainder of the tournament was to focus on man to man defense, and raising our intensity on the defensive side. The girls responded wonderfully and played the 2d half at a much higher intensity, giving up 2 and scoring 1. Like night and day.

Defense  hasn’t been a direct focus of ours as we are still working  lot of fundamentals of footskills and offense. Made a lot of progress today.   The girls spirits remained high and in the 2d half we actually made considerable progress, and I think have had an important breakthrough in their understanding of the game and working as a team.

We are a low Division 2 /high Division 3 team and I have viewed the tournament as a reward for a great indoor season of hard work and as a challenge to the girls to play against some really great teams.

We are installing the attitude in the girls that in soccer things never go according to plan, and that the most important thing to do is to decide what to do next based on where you are.  Keep moving and thinking and supporting your team. Van Tharp calls that respondability.

We are having fun and working hard in soccer;  more importantly these girls are developing the spirit and mental toughness to be able to face the next challenge, fearing nothing and going for it! So very proud of them, and of our parents who understand these lessons. Tomorrow, our focus will be on not passing the ball to the other team so much.