Category: Academic Writing Class Journal

Posted on

Confessions of an emerging autoethnographer

Academic Writing Class Journal

Yesterday, after I dropped Becky at her Animation Gets Real camp, I attended parent Q&A led by Sandie, Danni Bowman’s aunt. No doubt, hers is a success story: she said when she adopted 11-year-old Danni, she was moderately autistic, not even high-functioning. When I watched the documentary about Danni, I could not even believe she has ASD–she sounded very normal.

This is an inspiration, the hope I was so desperate to find for so long. Of course, this is more of a personal blog entry, but it adds to my reflexivity and therefore, this is a good space for it.

Because of my encounter, I am becoming really aware of differences between my native ontology constructed by my culture, family, and other elements of my environment and ontology I am awakening to now. In Russia, and especially growing up with my dad, I learned to believe that everything is predetermined. The quantitative approach to the exploration of this world is perfect because everything here can be measured. There are clearly defined hypotheses that can be and must be empirically tested: “we Soviets sent a man into space, and guess what? There is no God anywhere in the sky!” Then, oddly enough, in my senior year of high school, I picked up a copy of the New Testament and joined a Bible study group led by Korean American missionaries from LA (won’t even bother explaining that one :). I could not get enough of the Bible. I read it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner; I covered it with my textbooks in college, pretending to study because I was running out of words to explain why I am so glued to the New Testament. The day I received my first “Full Bible”–Old and New Testament together–was a day to remember. I felt like I came to possess an unbelievable treasure. I breathed my newly found faith, I was as born again–I KNEW I was born again by faith and because I felt it in my veins–all was new, the world was new, and I was new as well!

Looking back, I realize that the ontology of my born-again existence completely resonated with my original Soviet-forged understanding of reality: in the Bible, too, there is a beginning and the end; plenty of Gulags, the need to stay together. There is also the MENE TEKEL PERES (Dan 5:27), the judgment day, and the FATALISM that very much defined the mysterious “Russian soul” (think Crime and Punishment, War and Peace, and many other literary monuments to my culture). It was my husband (a Puerto Rican) who pointed out the latter when I was well into my twenties.

Even my understanding of hope was colored by a striking lack of choice: “believe, and you will live;” “put your trust in God, and no one can be against you.” I wrestled with how God’s will is kind of predictable based on Rom 8:28, but ultimately unknowable. And if He had the final say in everything anyway, then it really does not matter what I do for a living as long as it pleases Him? In the USSR, we HAD to be useful to the society. Our choices too were available between certain parameters.

Posted on

What is closeness: literature review

Academic Writing Class Journal

Initially, in the Social Psychology of Groups, Thibaut, and Kelley (1959) conceptualized relationships in terms of rewards and costs. I find this model helpful as it strips the construct of relationships of its high emotional complexity to the bones and allows to add back layers for further study.

In the latter volume, Interpersonal Relations: Theory of Interdependence,  Kelley, and Thibaut (1978) elaborated on relational dynamics of dyads and illustrated that two people in a relationship, though always interdependent, do not have the same level of influence over each other, and inevitably, one person’s needs or wants impose higher costs on the other. The dyad’s ability to strike a balance to satisfy or at least, appease one other will resolve a conflict, but can it explain the length, or the strength, or other qualities of relationships, such as closeness?

On the other hand, the feeling of closeness competes with negative emotions of a conflict; therefore, closeness must be transactional, and as for each person who shares it, he or she is both the producer and the product in these transactions (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). According to Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Development (1979), relationships are an example of “proximal processes” that shape and steer the development of a person.

 

If my relationship with Becky is “the progressive mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives”

 

 

Leslie-Case, K. P. (1999, January). The parent-child relationship: An interdependence approach. (mutuality, control, childhood, memories). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2986.

Posted on

What is closeness? Example: my father

Academic Writing Class Journal

“Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by persistent deficits (…) in social reciprocity, nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, and skills in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships” (DSM-5, 2013, p.31).  The clinician who diagnosed my daughter with ASD read the excerpt aloud. Becky was nine. I immediately wanted to know what this means for us long term. Will she ever get married and have a family of her own? Will she and I ever be close? I looked forward to the former as I envisioned my golden years, but the latter–closeness–seemed less distant though more abstract. To me, closeness is the ultimate prize of all the hard work that goes into cultivating a relationship; it is the flower that finally blooms, the berry that finally ripens. I yearned to experience it with Becky since I first learned I am pregnant with her.

My father is a kitchen philosopher and psychologist. I say kitchen because our small kitchen in a typical Russian high-rise flat is where we have our best talks. He is a thinker, like me. As a child, I would spot him blowing his papirosa smoke into the open window or out on the balcony if the weather was warm, and sneak up closer. He would turn his back toward me, warning: “I do not want to breathe on you,” and I would always say “It’s OK, I don’t mind.” Then we would keep silent for a moment or two. Somehow, a discourse would start and continue beyond his third or fourth cigarette.

When I was younger, he told me about his childhood in the post-war Far-Eastern USSR, his siblings, his parents, and his nearly fatal burst appendicitis… I easily pictured him as a kid, especially after he took me to his home village and showed me around. I loved that these stories made him so effortlessly vulnerable, sensitive, human.

As I became older, we frequently engaged in debates. Strangely, I do not remember exactly what we debated–there were so many topics! Let’s see… once, we discussed whether “white lies” are moral; another time, I remember  defining “maternal devotion.” On occasion, these debates became very heated, and I liked it so because they gave my pubescent mood swings and frustrations a healthy outlet. There were also exercises in logic which both of us apparently held in high regard. When I was in high school, we added God and afterlife to our discursive repertoire. It was huge for us, former Soviets…

I craved these moments with my father. They were special because no one else engaged in such deep, frank conversations with me during my first twenty years on Earth, not even Mom. Ever. They were authentic, spontaneous, unstructured. They made me feel close to my dad, although I cannot say how he felt about them. The memories of our talks are the fabric of my many important schemata such as “father,” “Russian man,” “childhood,” “cognitive development,” “relationship,” and others. They kept me grounded and carried me through our many conflicts. They modeled the expectations of my own relationship with my children. The big question is, is it possible to be this close with Becky?

Posted on

Bibliography

Academic Writing Class Journal

Delhaye, M. M., Kempenaers, C., Burton, J., Linkowski, P., Stroobants, R., & Goossens, L. (2012). Attachment, Parenting, and Separation–Individuation in Adolescence: A Comparison of Hospitalized Adolescents, Institutionalized Delinquents, and Controls. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 173(2), 119-141.

Examines how teens were attached to their parents:
(a) autonomous (or secure) with regard to attachment experiences, which implies coherent accounts of earlier experiences that value attachment;
(b) preoccupied by past attachment experiences, which implies anxious or angry responses in the interview; (c) dismissing of attachment-related experiences, which implies that such experiences are considered unimportant; and (d) unresolved (or disorganized) with regard to past attachment experiences, which implies lapses in reasoning when discussing loss or trauma.
Separation–individuation: (p. 121)
“a normative process that allows young people to establish a new type of equilibrium in their relationships with their parents. When going through this process, adolescents have to relinquish their internalized and idealized representations of their parents (i.e., the separation aspect) to develop a more mature sense of self Internalizing problems (e.g., depression) and externalizing problems (e.g., delinquency) are associated with particular types of parent-related perceptions in adolescence” (Collins & Laursen, 2004).

Collins, W. A., & Laursen, B. (2004). Parent-adolescent relationships and influences. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (2nd ed., pp. 331–361). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lafreniere, K. A. (2018). Mothers and daughters: Narratives of sustained connection during adolescence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 78,

Interpersonal Closeness

Yanping, T., Shaw, A., & Fishbach, A. (2016). The friendly taking effect: How interpersonal closeness leads to seemingly selfish yet jointly maximizing choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(5), 669-687. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucv052

Interdependence Theory

Leslie-Case, K. P. (1999, January). The parent-child relationship: An interdependence approach. (mutuality, control, childhood, memories). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 2986.

Finkel, E.J., Simpson, J.A. (2015). Editorial overview: Relationship science. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1. 5-9

Posted on

Is knowledge made?

Academic Writing Class Journal

Two or three months ago in Qualitative II class, we watched a short clip  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tno6oG9KRFY

introducing Karen Barad. Andreas Roepstorff said in (1:17) “what it is like to create knowledge” and it struck me like a lightning in a clear sky: What? We can CREATE knowledge?

Until now, I realized, I thought knowledge is something that simply  IS. It is neither created nor changeable. To get it, people must reach out and grab it when they want to or need to. It is like the fabric of cosmos. Neutral, ever present, yet obscured unless specifically sought out or accidentally encountered.

Perhaps, this explains why I personally never had issues with passive learning? I grew up blindly believing in the authority of teachers. They are servants of knowledge, the sages who have been trusted the secrets of the Universe. Yet, I always was intrinsically motivated to learn actively: receive what is being taught, then go get some more on my own.

Hopefully, I will make sense of this rambling somehow, but I had to get it off my chest.

So now that I heard that knowledge can be created, where does it leave me in my epistemological beliefs? Well, first of all, I submissively receive this statement as a bit of knowledge: I just have been handed a key to unlock yet another cosmic secret. SO. Knowledge CAN be created…

===================

12 hours later, after I had a few more minutes to think about this while waiting in pickup line for Danny:

I think I differentiate between “knowledge” as an abstraction and “knowledge” as a concrete concept (“I know you like this…”). Growing up in USSR,  the concept of “knowledge” (as an abstraction) was well-nourished. On Septemeber 1 of each year, all children would start school. We called it the “Day of knowledges.” All students would dress up in “parade uniform” (girls white aprons, boys always wore suits with a white shirt anyway), and bring flowers to the teacher. There would be happy kid music blasting, and everyone would gather in the courtyard for a ceremony: first-year students would be welcomed, graduates-to-be would be wished well; there would typically be a speech from a respected member of the community–a WWII veteran, or a “Hero of Labor.” The principal would say something, too. In the end, a male representative of the graduating class would put a randomly picked (usually the smallest) first-grader (we did not have kindergarten) on his shoulders, and make a lap in the inner circle of the gathered crowd of students. The little one would ring a hand bell as a signal of the beginning of the first period of the new school year. The first lesson in each grade was a “Peace lesson” where students would discuss the importance of world peace. The day was always short so that in the afternoon students could go out to the city’s parks, carnivals, movies, and other entertainment spots to enjoy deep admission discounts. The entire country celebrated the “Day of Knowledges!”

Then I thought that my father, who taught auto engineering for 30+ years, would be called an assistant or associate professor, but in Russian, his position translated as “senior giver” (as in someone who “serves” or “presents” knowledge). The term “instructor” was reserved strictly for those who taught skills, such as “swimming” or “nursing” instructor. I think the power structure and the culture of passive learning in the classroom setting was built into our lives in many ways, including the linguistic channels.

Posted on

Week 4: Rhetoric Helpers

Academic Writing Class Journal

Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Social Development IS the foundation of my rhetoric!
(below I bold keywords that argue my study topic: how do Becky and I connect)

“The ecology of human development involves the scientific study of the progressive mutual accommodation between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as this process is affected by relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the settings are embedded. “(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21)

“Learning and development are facilitated by the participation of the developing person in progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal activity with someone with whom that person has developed a strong and enduring emotional attachment, and when the balance of power gradually shifts in favor of the developing person.”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 60)

Here is literature support to satisfy Munby’s criteria for ethical research practices in my work:

“It seems to me that American researchers are constantly seeking to
explain how the child came to be what he is; we in the U.S.S.R. are
trying to discover not how the child came to be what he is, but how
he can become what he not yet is. (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 40) The
principle becomes operationalized as a transforming experiment, formally defined as follows:
A transforming experiment involves the systematic alteration and restructuring of existing ecological systems in ways that challenge the forms of social organization, belief systems, and life styles prevailing in a particular culture or subculture.”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 41)

What an amazing insight into the differences between American and Soviet approaches to developmental psychology! I inherited the latter epistemology because I was born and raised in the USSR, and adopted the second because I spent years living (and studying psychology) in the States. No wonder I get so conflicted when I reflect on the influence of my upbringing in the person and researcher that I am today!
Here is that Munby’s “What’s the point? [of research]” bit in the discourse on vigor, ethics, and rhetoric again.

Posted on

Troubles II: On the Validity and Rigor of Research

Academic Writing Class Journal

So it happens, we read and discussed an article in our Philosophies class this week that gave me food for thought.

“What discussions of trustworthiness, credibility, reliability, validity seem to lack is the sense that research has a purpose. (not the “Statement of Purpose”) …I am interested in what we think research that we do is for: What is the point?”  (p.155)

“What I think we need to show to our research students is how the constructs we build in the educational research get transported into arenas of professional practice, into the settings in which they can be used. My experience is that this transportation is not always successful” (p. 156)

Ethics and Rigor.

Justifying research in terms of knowledge for its own sake is NOT ENOUGH:

All propositional knowledge is in the service of action, and action is clearly normative. (p. 156)

“Propositional knowledge is knowledge that some proposition is true. It thus contrasts with knowledge-how and perhaps with knowledge-who and knowledge-which.”  (Moser, 1987, p.91)

Research rationale partially satisfies the need for the normative premise.

“Quality” and “value” of educational research extend beyond “reliability” and “validity” because if research knowledge must be translatable into action (see the previous argument), then it will always be subject to the educator’s experience and theoretical viewpoints. Therefore, here steps in rigor.

The “Limitations” section explains how “practicality may compromise rigor” (p. 157).

“reliability is a rhetorical device rather than an epistemological one” (p. 158) (emphasis added).

Rigor and Rhetoric.

Sandelowski’s assertion (p. 2, 1993, as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158):

“Rigor is less about adherence to the letter of rules and procedures than it is about fidelity to the spirit of qualitative work”

Munby’s comment:

Fidelity to the spirit of qualitative work is not enough. There must be rhetoric.

The language of statistics is but one form of rhetoric; however, it is a rhetoric that, for certain audiences and in certain circumstances can be more compelling and more functional than a case study, poem, or autoethnographical report
(Gergen and Gergen, 2000, p. 1033 as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158)

However, rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and is, therefore, also subjective.

The rhetorical tradition realizes the limitations of philosophical argument as a vehicle for persuasion, especially when addressed to those who lack the training to follow the arcane, arid argumentation relish by that tradition. The rhetorical tradition recognizes a fundamental fact, namely, that people are creatures of flesh and blood, of passionate desire and aversion.
(Shrag, 1992, p. 272, as cited in Munby, 2003, p. 158)

Munby’s conclusion: RESEARCH IS ABOUT PERSUASION.

Big Question: How Does My Idea Measure Up in Terms of Rigor, Ethics, and Rhetoric?

  • Am I interested in understanding HOW Becky creates connections with other people, including me?
    Yes!
  • Am I interested in what ways her connections with others are different from neurotypical individuals’ connections with others?
    Yes!
  • Is it enough to pass it for rigorous research?
    No! (according to Munby)
    Unless, of course, I can persuade other academics that my work translates into action. Somehow.
References:
Paul K. Moser
Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition
Vol. 52, No. 1 (Jul., 1987), pp. 91-114  link
Munby, H. (2003). Guest Editorial: Educational Research as Disciplined Inquiry: Examining the Facets of Rigor in Our Work. SCIENCE EDUCATION, (2). 153. link
Posted on

Week 3: Troubles

Academic Writing Class Journal

Topic: How do Becky and I connect? DSM-V cites impairment in social reciprocity in persons with ASD, and I would like to investigate how social reciprocity appears in our relationship.

This week, I read about ASD and the way it impairs social communications.  I have come across some really neat articles, and even a personal blog of a 38-year old woman with ASD, ADHD, and OCD.

The more I read, the more I question the value of my research idea. I go back and forth from feeling so clever and so special for going on a journey to figure out ASD as a parent to feeling unsure and not so confident about my ability to make a contribution to social science. ANY parent can do this–reflect, make conclusions, and then call it research. I feel like I am just too full of myself.

No doubt, this slump demands attention to the reflexivity statement and internal issues. I thought I already dealt with several months ago. I feel that getting OTHER parents’ perspective is more valuable than sharing my own.  I grew up in a culture that disapproved of self-promotion.
Does my autoethnographic research feel like self-promotion?
…I think so…
…sometimes…
…often…
…usually.
I envision my parent’s looks of disapproval: all this hard work, all this money spent on graduate studies. What do I have to show for all of it? Memoirs? Worse yet, memoirs about parenting a child with odd behaviors. They do not believe that Becky has autism. She asked them point blank on Skype two months ago. They faltered and finally said they believe that every person has something odd about him or her–some people more, some people less. I am not sure how to explain this point of view. Maybe admitting she is autistic would force  them to concede that their genetic contribution to the advancement of the species was inadequate? I also think that in Russia autism is usually synonymous with intellectual disability, and they refuse to entertain the association? Maybe they just think that I failed her as a parent and encourage wrong behaviors? Maybe it is all three… or neither. Maybe I am still trying to win their approval? Overthinking things a bit? “No prophet is accepted in his hometown” anyway (Luke 4:24) Truly, this is personal…
***WOW, I think just found an explanation in Bronfenbrenner’s quote here! (5/28/2018, 12:33pm)

Nevertheless, today I found some validation to my epistemological dilemmas in an unusual source: a personal blog of a grown woman with ASD, ADHD, and OCD (mentioned above). She shared what it feels like to be her in a conversation with others. She explained that when people say she is “manic,” she is simply expressing her emotions while trying to process an interaction with a person (here is the post). She shared that she is trying very hard to understand and show interest in conversation partners, but it is difficult for a range of reasons.  Becky does that too, only we call it “spazzing.” There were several other points that I immediately shared with Becky and my husband because I thought they were insightful, and then I reflected on how much value I placed on some stranger’s thoughts. Perhaps, my thoughts and experiences are important to someone, too? The only issue I see is the delivery: I am not trying to write a blog. I am trying to make an academic contribution.
There must be rigor. There must be originality.

Posted on

Week 2: Pilot Interview

Academic Writing Class Journal

Last Friday I conducted a pilot interview with Becky and asked about how she thinks the two of us connect. I first checked to make sure she understands the difference between “getting along” with someone and feeling “close” to someone. She does. She was able to articulate it and even gave me some examples of how she has close friends and some acquaintances.

It was an impromptu conversation. I told her to meet me in my bedroom after we came home from school. I needed to talk to her about her school assignment (she was late submitting it), then somehow, sensing she was less irritable than normal, I asked if I could interview her for my “Interviewing Theory and Practice” class. Next thing I know, I was setting up Zoom to videotape our conversation. She agreed and even asked for some time to preen because (as she later explained) she thought I will show the recording to my peers in class. I told her several times this video is for our eyes only, but she recalled her experience presenting my autoethnography with her and was so fixated on it that my words did not sink in. She loved going to USF with me and wanted to look impressive just in case a person from USF will see this. It is completely normal, of course. Especially, as her age. So the two of sat with our backs against the headboard, staring at the laptop rested on my ankles. We talked looking at each other on the screen in front of us! This was odd, but it occurred to me that I might try doing this in an interview with another autistic person who may have a hard time looking at me face-to-face. Maybe I am on to something here?

First impressions after the interview.

So I have been thinking about how she and I connect. Specifically, I have been thinking about how our connections are not as deep and rich as connections between other mothers and daughters that I observed. During our interview, I discovered (much to my surprise) that

  1. She actually recalls many instances of our connections. What really intrigued me is that she had NO trouble identifying them and there were many such memories. She lost interest in our conversation after about 30 minutes, but I am convinced it was not because she ran out of stories to tell. She just got bored.
  2. I could not help it but think that she and I connect plenty… contrary to what I have been thinking lately. As she talked about her examples of connections, I recalled other examples just as effortlessly, so here is what I concluded: we have a lot of connections, and because there are so many, I take them for granted. What I do remember are the negative emotions from our DISconnects. When I disconnect with Becky, I blame autism. When I disconnect with a neurotypical person, I blame something else, like personality.
    This gives me an idea: maybe I should study how we disconnect instead? Kind of like Foucault’s absent present… maybe it is worth pursuing… I think if I study gaps instead of “hills,” I may be able to see what is inside of these failed connections, what powers drive the desire to connect? A tree trunk looks whole and wide and sturdy until it gets cut down. Then we see the rings and can figure out what is “inside” that tree.
  3. It struck me that almost every example Becky brought up was about us DOING something together and that activities usually end up benefitting her in some way. For example, she remembered us going shopping on several occasions. Specifically, this was this trip to Victoria’s Secret at Wiregrass that she brought up. I remembered it as connection because it was us “girls” doing “girl” things while our men went to the bookstore and did their own thing, I related to her as a woman because we were bra shopping together. I felt proud because she was now old enough for something expensive…I can not typically afford such a treat, but here we were, solvent and together.
    Yet, she was not able (or not willing) to articulate the nature of this particular connection, so maybe I should investigate these further.
  4. I know that getting this information out of her through talk will be difficult, Maybe I could try drawing? She teased me about being “dramatic” after she read my first autoethnography narratives. She is a teenager, of course, but this is a limitation I cannot ignore-she actually might not share with me details to avoid being seen as “dramatic.”  I explained to her that what she perceives as “dramatic” is intentional because good research demands details and reflection. She is starting to understand this, I think. We shall see. Still, I do not think we can pull off a duo ethnography unless I find a different way to elicit responses out of her.
Posted on

Week 1: The Big Idea

Academic Writing Class Journal

I have been thinking about my study a lot. That is, I really want to look into how Becky and I connect. I first turned my gaze in this direction last semester two or so months ago, when I became scandalized by Deleuze’s work. Desire? Connections? I found his portrayal of humans rather vulgar, but I see his point. I think. At least, to some degree. It became evident to me after I “deconstructed” the “Don’t Hug Me I Am Scared” piece and “The Little Red Polo” piece that we humans search for connections and couplings. Constantly.  I know it is my “duh” moment, but I never considered motivations behind these connections before. At least, not in any way worth remembering.

Now that I revisit my concluding thoughts at the end of Don’t Hug Me, I disagree that “there will always be a wall” between us. Until VERY recently I thought Becky’s autism will always be a barrier between our meaningful connections, but I now think I was wrong. Ironically, my autoethnographic narratives project opened a venue for both of us to talk and to understand each other better, so I now believe that “meaningful” connections are more attainable and certainly more common than I previously noticed. I suspect I simply remember my failed attempts at connections with her more.

I want to get to the bottom of this as much as I can because I believe my findings will add to the body of knowledge about autism. DSM V states about individuals with autism:

Frequently, there is a desire to establish friendships without a complete or realistic idea of what friendship entails (e.g., one-sided friendships or friendships based solely on shared special interests). Relationships with siblings, co-workers, and caregivers are also important to consider (in terms of reciprocity). (p. 54)

The DSM V advisory experts wrote this to inform diagnosis, and this paragraph describes Becky’s attempts to connect with others to a T, but I would like to think of this social deficit in terms of “speaking a foreign language” and “having a language barrier.”

I should know a thing or two about this. I learned English as an adult. I mean, I officially received the instruction from grade 4 to graduation, but I was far from fluent in comprehension and expression, written and oral. To pass my final exam, I memorized a 300-word essay about Canada and prayed the teacher does not speak to me in English. When I met my first American at the end the last year of high school, I was overjoyed. I mobilized all English words in my vocabulary to start a dialogue, but our communication was very limited. We both tried and failed. The experience was exhilarating and it left me wanting for more, but for a while I had to resort to acting, drawing, carrying a dictionary, and simply speaking Russian in hopes the other party will recognize a familiar word. Then there were years of not understanding cultural references and mishaps with pronunciation.

Definitely. I am going to look at how Becky and I connect. First, I need to figure out how she perceives “connection” to others.