Reading and Writing Again

Winter Quarter, 2011 has just begun and I find myself sitting again for hours at a time.  It is a reading and sitting meditation practice. Monkey mind thoughts get in the way sometimes but the lure of ideas inspired by reading draw me into a deeper focus and concentration.  Every few hours I get up for water or to move around.

Blogging is also a distraction and a release -  it is a place to put the thoughts and ideas piling up in my head while I read.  Blogging becomes a place to digest, organize, and make sense of what I am reading and flesh out the forming seed thoughts.  I see connections everywhere.  I want to build bridges between various theoretical frameworks, perspectives and approaches.

My dissertation proposal seminar is taught by Zeke, my former epistemology professor.  He is old-school in the best sense of the word.  Zeke is probably in his 70s and a Michigan alum.

• (An aside:  Michigan is the real deal, where it is too cold to do anything but study and where most grad programs are rated #1 in the country.  Dr. Brown, Director of the School of Social Work at CSULA, is also a Michigan alum and said their graduate school alumni make up the greatest percentage of graduate school deans and directors.)

Zeke is from Israel and his native accent still comes through.  He uses braces to walk because of polio disease.  He is a scholarly heavyweight and a sociologist.  I am a dork because I find myself smiling in class a lot and giving him a thumbs up while I hang on every word he speaks and take copious notes.  It is a small seminar class - 8 students total - so it's hard to be inconspicuous with my painted-on goofy smile and hand gestures.  But I don't care because he is challenging and encouraging at the same time.  He takes my questions seriously and encourages being challenging.

Some nuggets from yesterday's lecture:

• Epistemology shapes the way we think about problems and dissertations.
• By the end of Spring quarter, we will have a well-defined dissertation proposal that we are comfortable defending.
• This is a writing seminar on substance and style, so expect to write and write and write. 
• We will write the proposal piece by piece.  We will read each others work and discuss it in class.  We will write several drafts of each section of the proposal.
• We will create an environment conducive to reflection and being self-critical.
• Dissertations must be well-written, that is, everyone needs to be able to understand the language, concepts and intent.
• Dissertation Proposal:

1. Statement of the Problem (the heart of the dissertation)
2. Critical Review of the Literature
3. Own Theoretical Framework
4. Hypotheses & Research Questions
5. Methodology
6. Timeline

• If you're not passionate about your dissertation topic then you will be miserable and the work will be unbearable
• Shoot above "run of the mill" but not too far in "left field" - get creative and add something new, your own special twist to the knowledge base - frame the problem in such a way that will make it exciting and different
• In his research career, Zeke borrowed a concept from manufacturing and used it as an analogy:  "Human service organizations are like factories and people are raw materials."  Initially controversial, this new way of looking at things set him apart as a scholar.

My assignment is to write the "Statement of the Problem."  He said this is the hardest part of the proposal.  Here I go...

Post-Positivist Epistemology

“Scientists are in the business of providing reasonable justifications for their assertions, but nothing can make assertions absolutely safe from criticisms and potential overthrow" (Phillips, 1990).

Epistemology Review

Next month we have comprehensive exams. We will be asked to write essays over the course of two days - four hours each day - on epistemology, research methods, policy formulation and policy evaluation. This is a review of the breadth of epistemological approaches we will need to be prepared to apply.

By 2050, the minority population will be the majority in the US. We need leaders and researchers that can influence public policy that will be responsive to the new America. Seriously, we need more people of color in higher education.

Epistemology - How do we distinguish knowledge from belief or prejudice? What criteria do we use? How do we know what we know?

Ontology - What is the nature of things? How do we categorize things?

Moral assumptions - The minute we want to have an impact on society we are making moral assumptions.

Postivism:
This approach believes that science is a reliable and the most valuable source of knowledge. Knowledge is based on experiences or observations. There is a symmetry of explanation and prediction. That is, if you have explained a phenomenon, you can predict future occurances.
If something exists, then it can be measured. Reality is objective and independent of our perceptions.
Verifiability theory of meaning posits that we start with a theoretical statement that can be observed and is logical in structure, which we can then go out and test whether it is correct.

Post-Positivism:
This approach recognizes that doing science is a social process. Research and knowledge are contextual. Theoretical constructs can guide you and lead you to ask a set of questions you might not have otherwise. Although there are mental processes at work, we don't need to explore or explain intentionality. Knowledge is conjectural - always up for reconsideration and based on the best evidence at the time. Can't ever get at the "truth," only what is "warranted" - that is, knowledge that is accepted by the strongest available evidence at the time. It may change as new information arises. Knowledge is obtained through disproving theories.

Interpretivism:
Over time we develop a consensus about what things are (intersubjectivity). There are subjective entities, such as mental states, that have a causal function on behavior. Language constructs phenomena and conveys reality. Social reality is created, but once it is created it becomes objectified and has real consequences. Many social facts are real only because they are believed to be real. In many cases, social science phenomena don't exist unless people believe they do. Social facts are different than natural facts because they include intentionality, therefore any social explanation must include the intentionality of the social actors and understanding of their language. The focus of this approach is on understanding.

Hermeneutics:
The science of interpretation of texts and understanding. You can't separate objective and subjective - both are important. Acknowledge that the same text can be viewed differently across time. There is an awareness of own prejudice and how it affects interpretation of the text. "Fusion of horizons" through dialogue with the text. Hermeneutics treats social science differently than natural science and values context with a willingness to test assumptions through dialogue. Does not provide explanations of phenomena.

Social Constructivism:
This approach sees things in a state of flux and very contextualized. Knowledge is socially constructed - it is something people do together. It reflects the interests of some groups more than others. Ideas about knowledge are created through interactions. These interactions are not constant from one social setting to anothe r. This approach does not deny physical aspects to many phenomena, but are interested in what those physical acts come to mean. Self is evolving and you are an active agent in its development.

Pragmatism:
This approach is not really interested in causal relationships. Knowledge is a process, cannot be isolated from its context and used to solve problems. Research strategies used include mixed methods - whatever works.

Critical Realism:
If something is illogical (i.e. leads to social outcomes that are agreed to be negative by general consensus), you "ought" to work to alleviate them. The social reality of doing science is transitive, but that doesn't change what is there. People are agents with influence to shape social realities. Knowledge is obtained by studying underlying mechanisms that cause tendencies. Research methods include trying to discover false beliefs, moral obligation to expose false beliefs. Acknowledges subjects may be wrong and not able to see outside of false consciousness.

Critical Theory:
Knowledge is gained by revealing false consciousness caused by oppressive circumstances, presenting evidence of false consciousness and then having the oppressed verify that the researchers are correct. Begins with Post-positivist/empiricist methods to prove oppressive circumstances. Then use hermeneutic process, if the oppressed do not agree, to attempt to show that they would agree in an ideal speech situation (a rational, democratic society where everybody has equal access to democratic debate, relevant information and everybody is heard). The assumption is that there are underlying patterns of oppression and that those patterns are rationalized through ideologies that then become internalized. The aim is emancipation of subjects from oppressive false consciousness - and enlightenment from self-imposed coercion.

Feminist Standpoint:
Starts with assumption that part of situated knowledge is that it is a function of oppression/oppressed condition. Women, minorities or other oppressed groups have distinct ways of knowing and experiencing the world, which gives them epistemic privilege. Oppression has resulted in only certain knowledge being validated (the one created by white males and tested on white males). Traditional research has embodied biases. By introducing female bias, perhaps some balance will result. Purpose is not just elimination of biases but liberation. The goal is liberation of oppressed populations and self-reflection is part of the process. Brings in perspectives that an engendered society tends to be blind to and transcends the political nature of research. Exposes sexism, racism and bias.

Postmodernism
This approach argues that the idea that we have progressed runs counter to the circumstances under which people live day to day. It emphasizes difference, fragmentation, change, the irrational. The reality of events exists only within the meanings assigned by those perceiving the events. All knowledge claims are only debatable within their own context, paradigm or community. Everything is interactive, so there is no way to determine the time sequence needed for causality. There is nothing inherently truthful about "knowledge." Adoption of any narrative is an act of power and precludes looking at other narratives. Things are not "true" or "untrue" - they just represent the attributor's own values and experience. There are no adequate means for representing external reality. Reject traditional methods of evaluating knowledge - does not put much stock in "reason." Interpretation is introspective and anti-objectivist. Rather than working to distinguish which patterns are more correct or more common, this perspective encourages the acceptance of various conceptions of a phenomenon. Rather than dismissing the outliers, studies the exception. Celebrates creativity, imagination, introspection, breaking conventions. Postmodernism is mainly a critique and doesn't create new knowledge. It focuses on deconstructing existing knowledge. Challenges conventional measurement tools because reliance on a single measure that oversimplifies, reduces or reifies construction of phenomenon (for example, domestic violence) can interfere with our full understanding of these issues.

Evidence-Based Practice:
This is not an epistemology, it is a practice paradigm intended to close the gap between research and practice to maximize opportunities to help clients and avoid harm. It arose as an alternative to authority-based decision making based on consensus, tradition and anecdotal evidence. It employs methods like meta-analysis which looks at the cumulative body of knowledge on a subject, all the studies, then ranks them by rigor of methodologies used (with Randomized Control Trials or RCTs at the top), whether it is translatable into practice, then engages in a decision-making process. It was originally intended to reduce lag in adoption of new innovations in the field.

Week 8

SW 245A, Epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge)
Everyone agrees this is thee most difficult course in the program. It is offered first up, welcome to the doctoral program! A bit of hazing, if you ask me. Every week there are about four articles and a textbook chapter of reading on a different epistemology (positivism, post-positivism, hermeneutics, social constructivism, interpretivism, critical realism, critical theory, feminist/standpoint theory, etc.). Every Friday a summary and three questions from the readings are due. Sometimes, this means posting assignments online just before midnight. Reading is often slow because the material is dense. Philosophers don't seem to speak or write plainly. It is beyond jargon, it is another language completely. I am learning abstract and difficult concepts in an entirely new language.

Our midterm assignment was a paper describing a well-researched theory which we will later analyze epistemologically and ontologically. Ontology refers to the nature of things that we know - are they real or ideal, independent and objective or socially constructed? I chose to examine Attachment Theory and how it explains our vulnerability to PTSD. Why don't all who are exposed to traumatic events later develop symptoms?

Despite the incredible challenges, this is my favorite class this quarter. The reading has become more and more fascinating and thought-provoking. The professor, Zeke, is knowledgeable and brings many real world examples of research using the different epistemologies, including his own. Zeke doesn't seem to mind all my questions. Even when I persist in challenging an assumption of our beloved Critical Theory.

SOC210A Statistics
This is a three-quarter series on Statistics taught by sociology professors. First up is Gabriel Rossman. He is a 32 (!) year-old UCLA and Princeton alum. He writes about pop culture, like music and the movie industry. His examples are fun in that they help explain the how and why of t-tests or bootstrapping or sampling, but also become interesting stories in themselves. He writes about the halo effect of teamwork on movie sets and its impact on the success of movies. He also uses mythology and quotes from rabbis to make his points. I like all this. I forget now which stats point he was trying to make but he told us about the ancient Hoplites and how they lined up for battle with the youngest in the front and the oldest in the back. This was not so much because the youngest were strongest in battle but because it prevented the youngest from turning around and running away in fear. This reminds me of field instructors and interns. Would any intern actually follow through with a biopsychosocial assessement and parent interview without the veteran field instructor holding the line?

I know that Gabriel is a Princeton alum because I actually wore a Princeton t-shirt to class one day (isn't wearing a t-shirt and yoga pants and a pony tail one of the perks of being back at school?). Anyway, when I reached over to get something out of my backpack, he noticed my t-shirt and asked me something about it, only I didn't hear him on account of I wasn't really paying attention yet because I was reaching for my legal pad for notetaking. Anyway, there he was smiling at me and waiting for a response and I didn't know what to say. Also, there is no back and forth conversation in that class. There are about 20 students and no dialogue, even when he asks us direct questions. It's a quiet group. My classmate thinks it is a sign of the fact that everyone is lost. Anyway it finally dawned on me, after a very pregnant pause, that he was asking about Princeton, I told him I had not attended but bought it on campus when I was back east for a conference. What conference he wanted to know. I was feeling uncomfortable in the spotlight, as usual. I am a horrible extemporaneous speaker. When I told him it was at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation nearby, he said his wife did health policy work for them, then went back to his lecture. My carpool partner said I will get an A in that class for wearing that t-shirt (thanks, Pia!). Then I wanted to know where he attended undergrad.

Every week we have one chapter of reading. Homework problems from the chapter and a lab assignment (using STATA not SPSS, Gabriel hates SPSS) are due every Tuesday. There are two 2-hour lectures every week (Tuesday and Thursday) and two 1-hour labs with our TA, Yool, every week (Tuesday and Friday). In addition, Todd Franke, a SW professor, offers a required Stats support session every other Wednesday from 11 am to 1pm. There will be a cumulative final in 3 weeks. I'm wearing the t-shirt again for good luck.

SW286A Survey of Research Methods
This is an optional course in the program, but I figured a review would help. The last time I took a Stats course was Summer 1994. I highly recommend that class. It was a math course taught by Michael Allen at Glendale Community College. I took it as a prerequisite for my admission to the MSW program at Berkeley. Even with all the Stats instructors I have this quarter, I am leaning on what I learned in that summer to get through Stats this quarter. The last time I took Research Methods was three semesters at Berkeley (Spring 1995 to Spring 1996). This is the course that gets my short-shrift. The reading is good but I rarely have time for it. The mid-term paper was the first half of a research proposal and I chose to use the South Los Angeles Resiliency Project to develop reasearch questions, hypotheses and a lit review. I figured it may serve me when I have to submit a publishable paper in my second year. This course is great in that it is walking us through every aspect of research - questions, hypotheses, units of analysis, reliability, validity (face, criterion, etc.) sampling, survey methods, etc.

I have to admit I took a break last week. I felt the exhaustion in every cell of my body. Not even the salmon oil was working. We got a new bed and that helps with having a refreshing good nights sleep (no body aches and pains upon waking). I had a massage, an accupuncture session (and left with Chinese herbs for energy), a color appointment (I was overdue by 2 weeks!), a nice walk at Descanso Gardens and another around the Rose Bowl. I read, A Round-Heeled Woman, in one day (I could not put it down) and now I am feeling restored again.

Monday begins week 8 of the fall quarter and that means we are close to the end of this round of boxing. Finals week is three weeks away and a three week break will follow after that. If the first year is all about survival, then I suppose I can say, with confidence, that I am indeed surviving. But it feels like so much more than that. When you pursue your goals, dreams or set about on your intentions, it feels like so much more than survival, it feels like living, real living, no matter how hard, it feels like being alive, like the pit in your stomach wants to burst out and scream, this is real, this is really happening, I am doing this now!

Thank you, Yesus, again and again and again...

Critical Theory

Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or the ways of knowing. How do we know what we know?

One of the epistemologies used in the social sciences is Critical Theory. Critical theory makes the assumption that all of us inherently want to be free. Critical theory further argues that oppression can’t continue without the acquiescence of the oppressed, however, proponents of this theory assert that the oppressed don’t know that they have a choice.

If you knew you had a choice, would you pursue freedom? No matter the cost?

After Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, they grew tired of eating manna from heaven and wanted to return to Egypt - where they had been previously enslaved!

There are rules that we learn because we are good students of our family, culture and society. But what if those rules were learned in coercive conditions? What if those rules serve an oppressive other but don't serve us - that is, serve to frustrate our freedom? Do we perpetuate them or do we challenge them?

Is it impolite to disagree? Who does this rule serve? And why is being polite more important than voicing your perspective? You may walk away with the self-satisfaction of being agreeable. But maybe the oppressive force who created this rule and sold it to generations, is the real winner, or at least ends up with the last word.