On March 29, 2018, I met with my mentor for thirty minutes to discuss my analysis and how I should compose my final narrative paper. Earlier in the semester, Dr. Field and I discussed how the interpretivist process is not as linear as the neo-positivist approach and how it could affect the layout of my paper and research explanations. Dr. Shinko advised that I start with my literature review to lay the groundwork for my paper and to have a comprehensive understanding of the body of my paper before writing my introduction and conclusion. Dr. Shinko also recommended that my introduction begin by discussing my puzzle then explain my interests and holes in the current literature.
One of the concerns I had with my research was sufficiently addressing reflexivity, for my current reflexivity section is minimal. Dr. Shinko suggested being straight-forward with the limitations of my project, specifically my lack of access due to translations, not being a victim of the Syrian Refugee Crisis, and being a resident outside of the EU. While I had placed my reflexivity section in my analysis originally, Dr. Shinko recommended I include it in my methodology section to preface my analysis. Another difficulty I had was including the extent of my exposure and sources in my final narrative paper without having excessively long footnotes. Dr. Field suggested using an appendix approach to show the entirety of sources I used. Dr. Shinko concurred with this recommendation, but she also mentioned citing the major sources in the footnotes, rather than including all of the sources I found in an appendix.
Finally, I asked Dr. Shinko for advice on creating a poster and presentation for the research symposium, and she advised me to start by deciding what text I will put on my poster before creating visuals or forcing irrelevant images. Overall, I am satisfied with my progress, and my next challenge is piecing the drafts of all my sections together.