In order to address my research question I felt it was appropriate to begin the coding process by identifying the presence of conflict in the piece. To my surprise, at no point is the word “conflict” included in the text, therefore, I needed to develop a working definition for the term. After identifying what I perceived to be instances of conflict I felt Deutsh, (1973), provided the most accurate definition of what I was observing. He stated that conflict occurs when;
“An action that is incompatible with another action prevents, obstructs, interferes, injures, or in some way makes the latter less likely or less effective.” (p.10)
I was able to identify are six instances in the transcript where the superintendent indicates her views/actions …show more content…
I could see obvious trends in the transcript, but was having a lot of difficulty determining what ideas were most strongly supported. After grappling with my original coding of the transcript, I actually needed to redo that process in order to feel like my ideas were more cohesive.
Was it easier or harder to think of supporting evidence for the disproving memo?
It was easier for me to think of supporting evidence for the disproving memo because I had already evaluated myself so critically. On Monday, I had written a rough draft of the first memo, but when I revisited those thoughts I deleted most of what I had. Essentially, I had already thrown out what I felt it would be easily refutable, so in writing the second memo I was only working with ideas that I felt were well grounded. Looking at the big picture, I suppose it is a good sign if I find it difficult to challenge my core ideas.
Would it be more of a challenge to double the length of the initial or disproving memo? Why?
It would be much easier for me to extend the length of the initial memo because I can further explain and provide evidence of my findings. Again, I assume this is a good
“An action that is incompatible with another action prevents, obstructs, interferes, injures, or in some way makes the latter less likely or less effective.” (p.10)
I was able to identify are six instances in the transcript where the superintendent indicates her views/actions …show more content…
I could see obvious trends in the transcript, but was having a lot of difficulty determining what ideas were most strongly supported. After grappling with my original coding of the transcript, I actually needed to redo that process in order to feel like my ideas were more cohesive.
Was it easier or harder to think of supporting evidence for the disproving memo?
It was easier for me to think of supporting evidence for the disproving memo because I had already evaluated myself so critically. On Monday, I had written a rough draft of the first memo, but when I revisited those thoughts I deleted most of what I had. Essentially, I had already thrown out what I felt it would be easily refutable, so in writing the second memo I was only working with ideas that I felt were well grounded. Looking at the big picture, I suppose it is a good sign if I find it difficult to challenge my core ideas.
Would it be more of a challenge to double the length of the initial or disproving memo? Why?
It would be much easier for me to extend the length of the initial memo because I can further explain and provide evidence of my findings. Again, I assume this is a good