(Re)reading theoretical concepts with the data
ETHICAL AND VALIDITY BASED CONSIDERATIONS
Indigenous paradigms critique the notion of validity and reliability in the traditional euro-western research sense (Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 2013; Tuck, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Traditionally, these words have been imposed in qualitative research to assert a sense of rigor believed to be had by quantitative research methodologies. Instead, an indigenous paradigm proposes that we maintain a sense of relational accountability to our participants. Relational Accountability
Wilson (2008) speaks about relational accountability and denotes what must be considered: topic, methods, analysis, and presentation. In speaking about these aspects of relational accountability is the idea that we must “come to an agreement about mutually understood idea[s]” (pg. 122) and that “authenticity or credibility may be ensured through continues feedback with all the research participants” (pg. 121). Transparency for the entire research process ran throughout, from beginning to end. Throughout this section I have shared many anecdotes about myself and how I came to the research process. I shared these ideas with my participants as well. In thinking about the pláticas and convivios I did not see myself as the sole purveyor of knowledge or as the person who will simply be there to
collect data. Instead, I thought of myself as the facilitator of the discussions and co- constructor of knowledge. That is, they were not specimens in a petri dish that had to be manipulated to ascertain some new understanding. Rather, we collectively decided what narrative to tell. We must also come to an understanding of how we can use this knowledge to further the field of education. Again, I do not deny how this paper must be completed for a credential nor that fact that it must be presented in the format of a dissertation. Member Checking
Creswell & Miller (2000) define member checking as “taking data and interpretations back to the participants in the study so that they can confirm the credibility of the information and narrative account” (p. 127). I believe that member checking happens at all levels of the research process. At the onset of the project I sent my proposal to the participants to read and ask questions about the study. This enabled them to start co- creating the essence of the study. During the collection process, I asked the participants to read and confirm what was being said. For instance, I queried as to what should be included or excluded and discussed the reasoning behind why specific narratives might be crucial to the overall project. I applied this throughout the analytical process. Essentially, member checking is about transparency on my end as the person who has to complete the requirements of the project while conceding some authorial license to my participants. LIMITATIONS
Much has been made about the notion of limitation in research, both qualitative and quantitative. In this project, I sought to understand how fronteriza teachers think about ideology in the borderland space where, historically, ideas and borders have been contested. An indigenous research paradigm afforded me the opportunity to think about
with whom I would like to conduct this study. In that sense, I thought a lot about wanting to go home a space where the people, customs, language, are all familiar. I carried this study out with a sense of pride that I can help others understand that corners of the world like Laredo are unique and have a wealth of knowledge that can be shared and added to not only bilingual education but how we think about education in general. Still, I understand that the findings presented here cannot be generalized to other sites or communities.
Similarly, the relationship between the audience and the text that cannot be foretold. I share this knowledge with the hope that those who read it will make use of it in a manner that is germane to their research, pedagogy, or policy. That said, I understand that the ideologies in this space are in constant flux and that those who teach and learn in this space are constantly negotiating their subjectivities. Therefore, this work as always becoming and never fully realized.
Even so, the one limitation that must be spoken of is that I, as the author and main tool of analysis, can never fully realize or grasp the essence of my participants, the community, or their ideologies. As much as I would like for this project to be an exchange of ideas and co-construction of knowledge, it is I who have to write the words in these pages and I who will ultimately get the credit for what gets published. More importantly, it is my lens through which these ideas get filtered. In so doing, my prints are all over this work and data meaning that the data will be tainted by my analysis (Urrieta & Noblit, 2018).
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
My intention was to study the life history of fronteriza teachers along the two Laredos for the purpose of understanding how they construct language and literacy ideologies that determine their ideas regarding bilingualism, biliteracy, and biculturalism.
With an Indigenous Research Paradigm in mind, I sought to employ narrative inquiry as my methodology. An IRP affords my participants and me the opportunity to be co- constructors of knowledge. Although there are many methods within the realm of narrative inquiry, I specifically endeavored to use life histories to garner this understanding. In the same manner that I came to understand my Güela as person, I believe that I can came to know how fronteriza teachers come to appreciate their roles as bilingual educators. While there are more characteristically appropriate methods of data collection (i.e. testimonio and counter-narratives). Embedded in those possibilities were the chance that the testimonio and counter-narratives will emerge naturally. To analyze these narratives, I engaged in thinking with theory. Theory allows us to make sense of data. But we should also consider how the data informs the theory as well. In thinking with theory and data alongside one another, I believe there is a more nuanced perspective to be gained.
As previously mentioned, Wilson (2005) speaks about relational accountability. Included in an IRP is the idea that our axiology and methodology subscribes to the three R’s of responsibility, respect and reciprocity. We must ask ourselves as researchers if (1) is what we are doing is generative for the community; (2) how can we give back to the participants and community; and (3) are we being respectful of the community and their values? Through these methods engaged the participants in the research process in a way that was mindful of their multiple subjectivities.