Same old

I continue to work on making a training module for mixed-methods research.  I am having to reorient my approach a bit because my audience wasn’t quite made clear to me when I started.  On creating my first draft, I received feedback about weeding out the academic language to make it more accessible.  I’m all for it!  In fact, if I could get away with shunning academic language in my academic career, I would!  The point of writing is to communicate ideas and information, yes?  So why not write so that people will understand?

Anyway, so I tweaked my module a bit.  It’s a little difficult to know just how in-depth I should go.  There are entire courses taught on this stuff.  And I don’t feel like I should be trying to enlighten the users about the philosophical underpinnings of the mixed methods paradigm of research (pragmatism, as opposed to quant’s positivism and qual’s constructivism).  It’s also difficult to write for such a diverse audience.  Who are the workers in the field?  What is their background?  What information will be most relevant to them?

I wanted to enlighten myself about some of this with a summer internship in SFCG‘s International Internship Program.  It would take me to one of SFCG’s twenty-two country offices around the world to do fieldwork.  But a competitive applicant field and a clerical mishap seem to have conspired against me.  There is still a little hope though.

Advertisements