trauma
i'm so traumatized by the revision of my theory/discussion chapter. dave suggested i start from scratch. kind of overwhelming, but what's more overwhelming is WHAT TO SAY. i feel like i really have addressed the research questions pretty well in the analysis chapters, though maybe not the enactment question.
dave asked what 'enactment' means different from 'negotiating' and that was a good question, and hard to answer. he asked if it is the difference between 'thought' and 'action', and i said sort of, though from my perspective of D.A., there is no difference--words are acting on the world. he suggested that i might frame it that way in that people usually think about it that way... one way to think about it. in terms of analysis, erase that distinction. that's an interesting suggestion.
a new way i've thought about presenting the theory chapter is just taking my claims, piece by piece, and showing how they are *explained* by the literature that already exists. so i can talk about parents' construction of the child, and present literature that suggests how parents construct the child and how they do in my study that's similar/different. then talk about how parents construct the world as a place of violence, citizenship rights, multiplicity, and present literature that supports this. talk about the different desires mothers have and present literature about parental goals. then talk about negotiating preparing and protecting and show the literature that relates to that (eg: this is what we already know... this is what my study adds/changes).
dave made a good point: not to try and create an 'intervention' in a disciplinary debate (between cognitivism and discursive approaches) but to talk about the similarity between my concepts and other research from another perspective as SUPPORTING my theorizing.
the problem is that i don't feel like i HAVE literature, or enough literature--i haven't read enough to be able to tackle each claim independently and have a wealth of support for it. i know the stuff about how parents construct the child is out there, and i even have enough of it floating around at home to tackle it (though i don't have much time!). i know the protecting and preparing stuff well and i already addressed that so i can borrow a good deal from that, reshape it, etc. but how parents construct the world? and parental goals? is there lots of writing on what parental goals are? i bet there is, but i don't know it. so what to do about that?
i don't know.
the other thing is that there is some stuff that is interesting in regards to interpretive repertoires. dave said i was attached to theoretical conflicts that maybe don't even exist outside narrow parameters. is that true? he suggested focusing much more on my empirical findings... which i agree with... but i still think the ontological discussion is somewhat interesting and lorraine liked it and found it interesting, but i'm not sure where to put it.
and then... if i support all my claims, what to do with the claims around how these things are enacted in the family? i'm not sure, because i don't have claims except to say that there are some similarities and some disconnects, and that is to be expected (i have literature that supports that--or rather, someone SAID that based on other literature i haven't read about child outcomes, and what to do with THAT i don't know).
trouble, trouble.
dave asked what 'enactment' means different from 'negotiating' and that was a good question, and hard to answer. he asked if it is the difference between 'thought' and 'action', and i said sort of, though from my perspective of D.A., there is no difference--words are acting on the world. he suggested that i might frame it that way in that people usually think about it that way... one way to think about it. in terms of analysis, erase that distinction. that's an interesting suggestion.
a new way i've thought about presenting the theory chapter is just taking my claims, piece by piece, and showing how they are *explained* by the literature that already exists. so i can talk about parents' construction of the child, and present literature that suggests how parents construct the child and how they do in my study that's similar/different. then talk about how parents construct the world as a place of violence, citizenship rights, multiplicity, and present literature that supports this. talk about the different desires mothers have and present literature about parental goals. then talk about negotiating preparing and protecting and show the literature that relates to that (eg: this is what we already know... this is what my study adds/changes).
dave made a good point: not to try and create an 'intervention' in a disciplinary debate (between cognitivism and discursive approaches) but to talk about the similarity between my concepts and other research from another perspective as SUPPORTING my theorizing.
the problem is that i don't feel like i HAVE literature, or enough literature--i haven't read enough to be able to tackle each claim independently and have a wealth of support for it. i know the stuff about how parents construct the child is out there, and i even have enough of it floating around at home to tackle it (though i don't have much time!). i know the protecting and preparing stuff well and i already addressed that so i can borrow a good deal from that, reshape it, etc. but how parents construct the world? and parental goals? is there lots of writing on what parental goals are? i bet there is, but i don't know it. so what to do about that?
i don't know.
the other thing is that there is some stuff that is interesting in regards to interpretive repertoires. dave said i was attached to theoretical conflicts that maybe don't even exist outside narrow parameters. is that true? he suggested focusing much more on my empirical findings... which i agree with... but i still think the ontological discussion is somewhat interesting and lorraine liked it and found it interesting, but i'm not sure where to put it.
and then... if i support all my claims, what to do with the claims around how these things are enacted in the family? i'm not sure, because i don't have claims except to say that there are some similarities and some disconnects, and that is to be expected (i have literature that supports that--or rather, someone SAID that based on other literature i haven't read about child outcomes, and what to do with THAT i don't know).
trouble, trouble.