Although this is not the first big idea I’ve come up with, it is the one that I’ve worked on this morning. I have been compiling the student descriptive adjectives from my interviews on a spreadsheet. The question reads:

I’ve been struggling with thinking of ways to group this data. I’ve also been struggling with getting up in the morning. This morning, my alarm went off at its usual 5:50. I snoozed once, then turned it off. I started thinking about the adjective data again as I faded back and forth from consciousness. I was thinking, how do I axially code (group) this data . . . I know I have some creative behaviors and I know I have some work-ethic ideas. And then it hit me . . . work ethic is like task commitment a la Renzulli’s (1986) three-ring conception of giftedness. Perhaps I can categorize the data into these three groups.

Today, during the Pathways to Innovation trip to UConn’s Material Sciences Department, Drew and I took a side trip to visit a professor in Electrical Engineering that might be able to help him with his project.

Unfortunately, the professor was not there, but we got to meet who I think was a tech in the lab. I was reminded of the words from the song “Colors of the Wind,” from the Disney movie Pocahontas:

“You’ll learn things you never knew you never knew . . . “

Wow! How true that was today! This lab was filled with instruments that I have never seen before – Drew wants to do some photolithography. Our self-proclaimed “tour guide” showed us around the lab and told us about some of the things the lab does. He was quick to show us an instrument and introduce it by its price tag. I would have preferred to hear what it did, but I am digressing.

What strikes me most, is that Drew has conceptualized VERY WELL exactly what he wants to do. However, it became obvious from our discussions with the professionals that there is more to it than he realized. Maybe? He just lacks the expertise to know – and I as the lowly biologist really have no sense of engineering as a discipline. Conversations with Bob regularly reinforce this.

And that’s part of the problem finding – knowing whether or not your idea is feasible with your expertise, resources, time etc. Maybe Drew isn’t to the problem solving stage yet – he still might actually be floundering in some mess finding.

I think my data might very well reveal the mess finding to be a significant aspect of authentic problem finding – and maybe even part of the great challenge if the student is interested in pursuing a topic beyond the scope of the experts he regularly has available to him.

• Ralph wonders if there is enough time in a 30-minute interview. He feels I should change this to a 1-hour interview. I think this only appears in the informed consent letters. Makes good sense.
• Karen feels I should review information about phone interviews. Nothing appears in any of the texts, so I will write to Karen and ask if she has any specific advice.
• I will “recruit” Tucker and Ryan to conduct the data collection for the Lexis Nexis search and create the document for me.



• Phone interviews – Dragon Naturally Speaking 9 with the digital voice recorder. Let’s pilot this ASAP!

In the lab, each student works on his or her own project under the direction of the PI. At times, the PI needs work done on his or her research and wrestles the minions into doing some of the labor. It’s part of the deal . . . the opportunity to work (and often get paid) in a lab, in exchange for some directed research by the PI. All’s fair.

So why not use the model, eh? I am the PI of my Applied Research Program, and my students have great ideas to share regarding my dissertation. Since I am not using them as subjects, why not take advantage of some of their insight with determining interview questions.

Qualitative research is supposed to have peer examination to get multiple perspectives. My “peers” are really my students. They think great and will help me immensely.

Link to the National Award Winning Applied Science Research Blog for student perspective: http://appliedscienceresearch.blogspot.com/2006/11/pis-research.html

OK, OK, I know this post reeks of sarcasm

The great challenge of preparing for a qualitiative data collection is determining high quality questions to ask the subjects to hopefully get the information necessary for completion of the study. My current “rough” interview schedule is listed below. It is my hope to refine this schedule with the help of my students to develop a comprehensive research strategy.

The Process
· What kinds of things did you do before you selected the idea for your project?
· Who helped you prepare?
· Describe the process you went through to get your idea for your research project. How did you go from a general idea, to a focused problem/project?
· What were some of the rewards? Obstacles?
· How long did it take you to come up with the idea for your project?
· Who influenced you in determining the idea for your project? What was the contribution?
· What are some of the frustrations with coming up with your idea?
· What kind of advice would you give to another student who wanted to conduct research?
· What makes your project a good project?
· Name three adjectives that describe you as a person in terms of your science project.
· Many students conduct research, yet your project was selected to represent the State of Connecticut? What makes you more successful than all of the other students?

Creativity

· What is creativity?
· Are science and creativity related?
· How are you creative?
· When are you creative?

The Scientist

· How are scientists different/similar from artists/musicians? Journalists? Politicians? Wait staff? Salespeople?

• How are you different/similar to students who don’t conduct research, but may be of similar intellect?
• How are you different/similar to students who do research but have less experience than you do?

I have just completed my first “viewable” version of my lit review for my dissertation proposal. It is available at the left link. The file is currently set as “File 1.” The balance between including information is difficult. I am struggling with my lack of information on problem finding. It seems that I have a whole binder full of problem finding stuff, yet I am struggling because it seems to say very little — I guess that makes this a worthwile study. I am less attached to my model of having to progress through stages (e.g. mess finding, problem finding, etc.) I think, since this is more of my conceptual idea, I can use it to frame what I do without necessarily forcing it into my dissertation. It might be an appropriate conclusion for the study/ look at transferability. I hope ISEF comes through to allow me to study.

Last year I had a good friend come in to do an interview with students (see interview series in the applied science research blog http://appliedscienceresearch.blogspot.com) Lisa was a PhD scientist that talked about her experiences and decisions to follow that track. She initally contemplated being a doctor.

Her view on the basic difference between the MD and the PhD: She felt that MDs have an extensive database which they access on a regular basis. They collect data on a patient, and then access their database to make a diagonosis.

The PhD??? The PhD MAKES the database. There is more creativity involved.

And so it goes . . . PhDs make good role models for our research students because they are creative producers. They demonstrate the qualities we want to observe in our students. Allowing our students to work with experts promotes the cognitive apprenticeship that eventually allows them to produce the high quality product