- How will my literature review need to change between now and my final submission? (Is it currently too long? Too vague? Does it do a sufficient job in taking up the specifics of my research question? Am I confident that I have an adequate grasp of the puzzles and schools of thought in the field?)
My current literature review of empowerment needs to be condensed and include more precise statements outlining how it informs my project and analysis. I still believe that my schools of thought including international development, feminism, and education are the most important in addressing empowerment. However, since my discourse analysis focuses on the meaning-making of organization propaganda I will also consider how empowerment is portrayed in media campaigns. Further, I might explore how empowerment and messages of heroism inspire audiences to act. My development through education section needs the most attention because I initially focused on power structures within educational systems. This approach might have been more appropriate if I had chosen ethnography. However, now I must focus more on the developmental implications of empowerment through education.
- What additional works do I need to read in anticipation of our workshop on February 10 to make this happen? Please do some concrete research here and provide a bibliographical list.
Adhikari, H. “Freedom Vis a Vis Independence: An Overview in Light of Feminism, Women’s Development and Empowerment.” Journal of international women’s studies 14, no. 3 (2013): 275-85.
Chant, Sylvia. “Women, Girls and World Poverty: Empowerment, Equality or Essentialism?” International development planning review 38, no. 1 (2016: 1-24.
Duflo, Esther. “Women Empowerment and Economic Development.” Journal of Economic Literature 50, no. 4 (2012): 1051-79. http://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.50.4.1051.
Eyben, Rosalind. “Choosing Words with Care? Shifting Meanings of Women’s Empowerment in International Development.” Third world quarterly 30, no. 2 (2009: 285-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436590802681066.
Lennie, J. “Deconstructing Gendered Power Relations in Participatory Planning: Towards an Empowering Feminist Framework of Participation and Action.” Women’s Studies International Forum 22, no. 1 (1999): 97-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277- 5395(98)00098-3.
Switzer, H. “(Post)Feminist Development Fables: The Girl Effect and the Production of Sexual Subjects.” Feminist Theory 14, no. 3 (2013): 345-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700113499855.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. 30th Anniversary Edition ed. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., 2005.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books, 1999.
- How will my methodology discussion need to change between now and my final submission? (Is it currently too long? Too vague? Does it do a sufficient job in taking up the specifics of my research question? Am I confident that I have an adequate grasp of the methods that I plan to employ?)
My methodology discussion needs to be more concise but is specific in addressing my method choices, tradeoffs, justifications, cultural competence, context, and reflexivity. I need to more clearly address trustworthiness. My methods section needs to be adjusted to correspond with my exact research methods that I execute rather than my anticipated procedure. I still must work with my faculty mentor to confirm what I will be able to execute with the resources available to me. Though I have not analyzed my texts yet, I am confident that I understand the methodology of discourse analysis in the interpretivist world and can work with my mentor on the specifics of coding.
- What additional material will I need to read in order to feel confident about my methodology discussion, due on February 28?
Andrew Abbott, Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences, New York: W.W Norton & Company, 2004.
Iver B. Neumann, “Discourse Analysis,” in Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, ed. Audie Klotz & Deepa Prakash, Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008, 63-65.
S Peregrine Schwartz-Shea and Dvora Yanow, Interpretivist Research Design: Concepts and Processes, New York: Routledge, 2012: Ch. 6: “Designing for Trustworthiness” (pp. 91- 114).
Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams, The Craft of Research (3rd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
- What questions and concerns do I have that I might ask about at the Collective Advising Workshops?
What is the most effective way for me to incorporate new dimensions/schools of thought into my literature review?
I want to explore some schools of thought about in empowerment in media. How can I incorporate those ideas into an international relations centered research project?
I question whether my project has shifted so much that I need an entirely new literature review. How do I start going about this without losing everything that I have collected already?
How much background do I need to include on terms like cultural competence, context, reflexivity, and trustworthiness? Is it assumed that the academic research community knows these concepts?
How much context do I need to include regarding context of my research topic?
Is it too confusing to analyze both propaganda itself (text and videos) and interview activists influenced by that propaganda?