How Things Work - Doha Academy of Tertiary Studies

188 QUaLItatIVe ReSeaRCH
11.2. the uKRaiNe RePORt
Let us illustrate the iteration using the Ukraine study. Its research question
might have been stated, “How has the International Step by Step program
developed in Ukraine in the years 1995–2005?” A second research
question might have been, “How did the Ukraine Step by Step program
make it possible for Liubchyk, a boy with autism, to be a first grader?”
The circle plan for the Ukraine study was shown in Figure 10.1. The
boxes (issues and topics) and patches for Efimova and Sofiy’s Ukraine
report were presented in Figure 10.2. We now use the iteration procedure
to practice making an outline for writing their final report. (We
already know the Ukraine researchers, early in their research, decided
on the outline and page allocation shown in Figure 11.3.)
We would study the Ukraine research questions carefully again,
noting main concepts and, with a mental concept map, examining the
related topics. We might put each topic on a card to move around on the
table. After realigning these topics, possibly discussing them with colleagues,
we might say that the main content (as oriented to the research
question) for the final report should be (1) child- centered teacher training,
(2) inclusion, (3) children with disabilities, (4) parent support, (5)
equal opportunity, and (6) legislative policy. That is Outline 1.
Next we would study the patches and recall the experiences of the
fieldwork, making a new set of cards. Putting them in order of the prominence
we would like to see them have as representations of the phenomena
studied, paying almost no attention to the research question, we
might select this distribution of content for the final report: (1) teacher
training, (2) advocacy for change, (3) inclusion, (4) the nature of autism,
(5) social learning in school. That is Outline 2.
Returning to a consideration of how the research question might
best structure the report but wanting the field experience to be prominent,
we would use the second outline to modify the first. The new
priorities (Outline 3) might be: (1) child- centered teacher training, (2)
Liubchyk, (3) inclusion policy, (4) advocacy for change, (5) autism, (6)
parent support. The next outline would use Outline 1 to modify Outline
2, still emphasizing patches but heeding the research question more; thus
Outline 4: (1) Liubchyk, (2) inclusion policy, (3) disability of children,
(4) teacher training, (5) social learning in school, (6) advocacy by parents.
Finally, 3 and 4 would be merged into Outline 5, perhaps moving
teacher training a notch higher.