| The following post from March of this year was part two of what was supposed to be a 3-parter. Here, in lieu of that final closure, I choose to just recycle this entry! Seriously, though, it is safe to say that I have long since moved beyond the original crisis that inspired this duo of posts. I am now at that envious time/place in the research process when/where everything I touch turns into the gold of relevance: my justification for using a "lay theory" framework, my research methodology, my overarching theoretical framework, my sample, and--most importantly--the data emerging from pilot work. It is as if the universe is repositioning itself solely for the purpose of throwing my work into greater illumination! But just so I don't get too uppity about this current pleasant state of affairs, this earlier post is worth another read. Achieving such synchronicity, afterall, is as much a matter of hard work as it is of luck. (Originally posted March 23.) |
The other day I discussed my crises of graduate student faith. So far so good, in terms of my recovery. I am going full steam ahead (despite distractions in the news) with my work.
Part of what I hope to do here today is take a stab at opening up my mind to document (for myself and anyone else who is interested) the process I went through in recovering what makes me excited about my work.
Background:
My dissertation will center on what I am calling (for now) adoptive parents' "genetic narratives"--the things they talk about when they speak of their relationships with their children, how their children are and are not like them, how their child fits into the family. (See this post and this one for some background about how I am thinking about this concept.)
I now have a 3-page summary of my research proposal. In addition to the genetica narratives piece I've settled on the concept of "lay theories" as the way I plan to analyze these narratives. This is not a framework that has been applied, so far as I have been able to uncover at this point, in adoption research. I was really excited about looking at this topic through the frame of lay theories. Others who had read my mini-proposal validated the innovation of this framework. All seemed peachy.
But Then...
Then I began to worry. My main question: Why "lay theories"? Why not just "beliefs" or "cognitions" or "attributions" or "justifications" or "attitudes"? Many of these concepts have long-standing, rich histories of application in family literature, especially regarding parenting. So why complicate things by examining these phenomena as "lay theories"?
Definition:
Lay theories are called by different names: implicit theories, folk theories, naive theories, to name a few. In general, these are thought of as fairly structured systems of beliefs, largely implicit, that people hold. They are thought to be the frame through which people evaluate situations, people, and information. They are thought to be a kind of filter, contributing to some things being selected for attention, and other things being filtered out. They are thought, through this process, to impact people's actions--or, barring such a direct causation, impact their motivation or their inclination or their predisposition to act.
Key is that "lay theories" are systems held by...lay people. Thus, we all have lay theories about all sorts of things. Unlike formal, scientific theories, lay theories can be (and often are) rife with contradictions, fuzziness. They may have as much to do with making sense of the world as they do with making predictions about the world.
Also key is that changing beliefs (or attitudes, or attributions...) is not so simple because of the linked nature of beliefs within a lay theory. So, things like "education" or "therapy" or "advocating" are not a matter of simply giving people more information, better information, correct information. Flipped: It is not a matter of getting people to see how their beliefs are sparse, inferior, incorrect. It is even not a matter of getting people to "empathize" or feel something on a "gut level" or "identify with" something. Beliefs in lay theories are bound up in a package, and a package that we are not even fully aware we are carrying.
There is more about lay theories-e.g., where they come from, why people have them, how people have them in regard to various content topics.
But just getting this far--to be able to articulate in my own words without rushing to some book or article to quote a citation--is an important step in my ability to answer my own question: "Why lay theories?"
What I have come up with is a multi-part answer. That is not totally true. Before I had an "answer" I had a rough sketch of what an answer to this question might look like. What would I like to be able to say, when justifying my choice of "lay theories" over "attributions" or something else?
As examples:
* I might want to be able to say that use of this framework is more innovative, taking this work in different directions.
* Or, I might want to be able to make a valid claim that analysis as lay theories will actually be more informative, or will resolve some dilemmas in the literature that analysis via other means has not been able to do.
* Or, I might want to be able to show how analysis in this way will contribute to my longer range research stream. (Actually this idea of being able to articulate your dissertation research as an important early step in a longer-term plan is increasingly important: "Programatic Research" is the buzz phrase of our time.)
* Perhaps related to the previous point, I might want to be able to justify my choice based on where such an analysis has been able to lead other, fruitfull areas of research on new, important topics. So, I'd be claiming a parallel of my work with other areas, showing how it fits in. Coming full circle to my first point, this might lead to greater innovation in my own topic while also contributing something new to the more established areas already employing this framework.
But knowing what an answer might look like is not the same as knowing the answer. Right. And it may seem like trivial nit-picking to break this process down in so many steps. Need an answer? Then state an answer, already. But when you are doubting yourself--as I was doubting myself--you can not take these things for granted. It's like when you're late for class and you can't find your keys. As much as you'd like to just think for a moment and say "Oh, yeah--They're in my sweatpants from yesterday!" you gotta retrace all your steps: "Hmmm...coat pocket? No...Kitchen counter? Noooo. Did I drop them onto the garage floor yesterday coming in from Cub? No (but that was a good one)...Freezer when I was putting away the orange juice..."
This process for me was similar: What first made me so excited about this framework? What was the first article I read about it in? Why did that researcher use it instead of attribution theory or something else? What other fields use this concept? Might it be called something else in those areas? And so on.
So, at this point in the story I knew what I was looking for. That helped me find it. Last installment of my resolution of crisis next time.
Posted by perry032 at November 2, 2005 02:33 PM