99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
An Autoethnography of a Dyslexic PhD Tutor in the UK
Jessica Eccles-Padwick
Edge Hill University, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Eccles-Padwick, Jessica
Introduction
There is a lack of first-hand accounts from dyslexic Higher Education (HE) tutors within the literature. This investigation will add to a body of research, offering insight and understanding into the experience of a dyslexic tutor working in HE. Being an autoethnographic inquiry, the work derived from this study is not intended to be universal; experiences shown in this project should exist for others to respond to in the wake of a lack of accounts. Moreover, the findings of this investigation possess the power to resonate with others where intersections of their lives may be similar, including national and international colleagues. The rationale for using my own first-hand account stems from a lack of autoethnographic accounts of dyslexic tutors in HE. Several studies in the literature detail the experience of dyslexic trainee teachers (Glazzard & Dale, 2013; 2015; Jacobs, Collyer, Lawernce, & Glazzard, 2021); dyslexic students (Robinson, 2017; Shaw & Anderson, 2018; Gant & Hewson, 2022); and dyslexic tutors teaching at various levels of study (Riddick, 2003; Griffiths, 2012; Patrícia, Borges, Pinto, 2022). However, most of these works do not utilise autoethnographic approaches. Additionally, none of the accounts mentioned reflect on tutors who develop a dyslexic identity whilst teaching.
The ontological and epistemological stances taken in this work are social constructivism (SC). I will conduct this work with the notion that reality is the product of agreed-upon concepts (Cresswell & Poth, 2016). Autoethnography is suited to be framed via SC, as I am embracing that in a world where agreement by society dictates what we know of a given thing, under this framework, I know intimately about the thing I am researching – my experience. I am seeking to demonstrate the relationship between being an educator and being dyslexic so that others may understand my experience in their views. The findings of the study are not meant to be generalisable, however, these may be relatable and encouraging to others who find themselves in a similar position or those who desire to understand the authentic experience of dyslexic tutors; an important consideration given the lack of representation for dyslexic educators in HE (Hiscock & Leigh, 2020).
Background
My own experience of teaching and dyslexic identity covers a period of five years. Firstly, I taught in a college during my undergraduate degree, with no firm conception of what dyslexia/ being dyslexic was. I then studied for a teacher training degree immediately after learning of my dyslexic status; finally, currently, I am a Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) at a UK HE institution, whilst writing my PhD on dyslexic experiences, and self-identify as dyslexic. The sections and intersection of these stages of my life chart the development of my professional practice and dyslexic identity. Whether or not learning more about those aspects of myself that can be called dyslexic has had any impact or influence on the way I teach is unclear. This investigation will offer insight into my own lived experience, where readers may relate or empathise, in response to the research question: In what ways has the development of my dyslexic identity impacted my professional practice?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethodology
Being inductive in nature, autoethnography is a congruent methodology for inquiry, as I will critically analyse my experience concerning the literature showing instances that complement and contrast.
Autoethnography offers an avenue to “[converse] with the literature” (Wall, 2008, p.40), allowing for a zoomed-in view of practice at the granular level, paying attention to nuances of details in embodied examples of practice (Adams, Ellis, & Jones, 2017). Considering my aim is to develop my practice, I need to reflect on what I do and why I do it (Lee, 2020). Through using an autoethnographic approach, I will add concrete examples to the body of literature by sharing my account relating to the literature (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011). While some deem autoethnography only a method for illustrating personal accounts (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Walford, 2004), I intend to link themes within the literature to my experience. Using a rigorous approach in my reflexivity when investigating the complements and contrast of my account to other works, as bias is unavoidable in ethnographic work and should be embraced by the researcher (Duncan, 2004).
Reflexivity is a core element within autoethnographic research. Rather than prising objectivity in this study, the inevitable subjectivity of my approach to the question should be embraced and made transparent. Being part (and chiefly, the narrator) of the world that I am seeking to illustrate will require me to pay close attention to my position towards the data. The evolving relationship between the data and myself will be highlighted in a reflexivity journal, enabling me to highlight my assumptions and biases when sharing insights.
Methods
I will create entries in a dedicated research journal as the main method, whilst also using artefacts (e.g., previous personal diary entries over the past five years) to support relevant themes as they develop.
The resultant data will be analysed using reflexive thematic analysis ((TA) Braun & Clarke, 2006; 2019; Clarke & Braun, 2013)). Using reflexive TA will enable me to identify resonant themes from the insights and accounts (Wilkinson, 2020).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe expected outcomes of this inquiry may focus on self-concept, agency, identity and inclusion. Whilst the research is ongoing, emergent themes have highlighted the importance of self-concept when navigating the development of a new identities. through the course of the research I will continue to analyse the data and disseminate findings, aligning finding to research in the literature.
ReferencesAdams, T. E., Ellis, C., & Jones, S. H. (2017). Autoethnography. The international encyclopedia of communication research methods, 1-11.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77101.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health, 11(4), 589-597.
Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Successful Qualitative Research, 1-400.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
Duncan, M. (2004). Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International journal of qualitative methods, 3(4), 28-39.
Ellis, C., & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 733-768). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical social research/Historische sozialforschung, 273-290.
Hiscock, J., & Leigh, J. (2020). Exploring perceptions of and supporting dyslexia in teachers in higher education in STEM. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 57(6), 714-723.
Lee, K. (2020). Autoethnography as an authentic learning activity in online doctoral education: An integrated approach to authentic learning. TechTrends, 64(4), 570-580.
Walford, G. (2004). Finding the limits: Autoethnography and being an Oxford University proctor. Qualitative research, 4(3), 403-417.
Wall, S. (2008). Easier said than done: Writing an autoethnography. International journal of qualitative methods, 7(1), 38-53.
Wilkinson, C. (2020). Imposter syndrome and the accidental academic: An autoethnographic account. International Journal for Academic Development, 25(4), 363-374.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Invisible Change: Informal Learning Practices among Craftspeople in SMEs - A subjectivation-theoretical analysis into the affective creation of learning identities
Milan Glatzer, Antje Barabasch
SFUVET, Switzerland
Presenting Author: Glatzer, Milan
The project presents preliminary results of the research into informal and non-formal training practices of photovoltaic system assemblers in Switzerland. The research follows an empirical subjectivation approach and aims to understand the interrelation between normatively loaded education-discourses, intrinsic learning ambitions and the construction of workers identities. Such knowledge is necessary for understanding increasingly diverse careers and corresponding new learning needs.
In Europe, the competition with uprising economies and the unfolding of a knowledge society has amplified political efforts, to institutionalize a culture of lifelong learning (LLL). Such efforts are accompanied by the establishment of normatively loaded discourse regarding ideal learning-subjects, which emphasize flexibilization, self-disciplining and individual responsibility (Holzer 2014; Mariager et. al 2016; Rothe 2011). The shift in responsibility for one's own positioning in the social hierarchy, has strengthened the importance of educational certificates, gained through formal training. At the same time, research in adult education has come to recognize the importance of informal learning for further education. This applies especially to craftspeople in SMEs who demonstrate a strong culture of “learning by doing” (Dobischat et al. 2019; Eraut 2004; Fenwick 2008). The consequence is a conflictual relationship between the learning ideals conveyed by the LLL-discourse and the learning dispositions of craftspeople. The questions appear, how do craftspeople from SMEs, with extensive experience in lifelong learning, relate to formal education courses and the LLL-discourse throughout their identity-work, and how does their identity as learners instruct their informal learning practices?
The photovoltaic system industry in Switzerland is of special interest for these questions, as it lacks a standardized apprenticeship system and relies on non-formal and informal learning strategies. This circumstance attracts a range of diversely qualified workers with extensive experience in informal and lifelong learning. At the same time, the industry is undergoing a process of formalization, with the first apprenticeship-course starting in 2024 („Grünes Licht für Schweizer Solarlehren ab 2024“ 2022). This change is likely to require experienced assemblers to take part in formal training courses which threatens to devaluate their identity as experienced professionals and conflict with their intrinsic learning ambitions. The goal of this research is to document the strategies of assemblers to address these challenges by looking at both, the institutional adaptations of the companies and the identity-adaptations by the assemblers.
Examining this tension provides valuable insights into the conflictual dichotomy between formal and informal learning and ways to overcome it. Such insights are of importance for establishing ways to formally accredit professional experience, thereby supporting people in their learning needs as career jumpers and lifelong learners. The research is conducted through a qualitative case study approach, involving interviews with assemblers and participatory observations.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedIn order to be able to describe the assemblers’ learning attitudes and practices, the establishment of a trusting relationship is essential. This is made possible by ethnographic approaches using participant observation. Therefore, I am exposing myself to the informal and non-formal learning practices of assemblers over a period of several months.
In addition to field observations, an interview analysis based on subjectification theoretical approaches will be conducted. Empirical subjectivation research is dedicated to the study of people's practices of self-formation within symbolic orders (Geimer et al. 2018, 2). In order to examine the interrelation between embodied and discursive knowledge structures, a methodological consolidation is suggested which combines Geimer's Documentary Subjectification Analysis with Bosancic's Interpretative Subjectification Analysis.
Central to the Interpretative Subjectivation Analysis is the merging of discourse and subject analysis. Accordingly, both levels are reconstructed in relation to each other through analyzing the constitution of human self-references. For such an amalgamation, principles of the Sociological Discourse Analysis of knowledge are combined with principles of the American Interpretive Paradigm. With reference to the former, Foucault's concept of discourse is applied so that socially circulating "subject models" and accompanying normative appeal-structures are determined (Bosancic 2014, 171). With reference to the Interpretive Paradigm, on the other hand, Mead's concepts of identity formation are mobilized, so that social interaction processes – as the occur in interviews – come into view for the constitution of self-references (ibid. 77).
Geimers approach is based on Bohnsack's documentary method and distinguishes between implicit and reflexive knowledge, whereby it assigns action-guiding relevance to the former (cf. Bohnsack 2009: 321). Accordingly, analytical access to such bodies of knowledge cannot be achieved through a theoretical explication of the interviewees. Instead, it is necessary to explore the "structure of meaning" behind the statements of the interviewees, so that knowledge structures are investigated that are beyond the scope of the interviewees' reflection (ibid.: 324). Accordingly, the central task of the Documentary Method is "to make implicit knowledge explicit" (ibid.). Although in the Documentary Method the focus is on action-guiding knowledge, the interest is not in the actions themselves, but in the orientations of the actors regarding their actions (ibid.: 325). Bohnsack emphasizes the extent to which ultimately such orientation patterns are decisive for the creation of continuity in action (ibid.).
Since the different research approaches complement each other in their epistemic design, a triangulation between the approaches is pursued.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsPreliminary observations indicate that installers make little reference to the discourse around lifelong learning in their self-narratives. A major reason for this is the individualistic orientation of the discourse. Instead, there are indications that a collectivist motive of local belonging is crucial for the installers, both for their own self-image and for their own motivation to learn. Thus, the self-narratives of the solar installers also hardly mention the contribution made to the preservation of climate goals. Instead, aesthetic components of the newly learned profession in particular come to the fore for identity formation. The observations raise questions regarding successful continuing education strategies for skilled trades.
ReferencesBosančić, Saša. 2019. „Die Forschungsperspektive der Interpretativen Subjektivierungsanalyse“. In Subjekt und Subjektivierung, herausgegeben von
Alexander Geimer, Steffen Amling, und Saša Bosančić, 43–64. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22313-7_3.
Dobischat, Rolf, Bernd Käpplinger, Gabriele Molzberger, und Dieter Münk, Hrsg. 2019. Bildung 2.1 für Arbeit 4.0? Bd. 6. Bildung und Arbeit. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-23373-0.
Eraut, Michael. 2004. „Informal Learning in the Workplace“. Studies in Continuing Education 26 (2): 247–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/158037042000225245.
Fenwick, Tara. 2008. „Workplace Learning: Emerging Trends and New Perspectives“. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 2008 (119): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.302.
Geimer, Ivanander / Steffen Amling / Sasa Bosancic (2019): Einleitung: Anliegen und Konturen der Subjektivierungsforschung, in: Subjekt und Subjektivierung: Empirische und theoretische Perspektiven auf Subjektivierungsprozesse, Wiesbaden, Deutschland:
Springer VS. S. 1-11.
„Grünes Licht für Schweizer Solarlehren ab 2024“. 2022. 20. Dezember 2022.
https://www.swissolar.ch/services/medien/news/detail/n-n/gruenes-licht-fuer-schweizer-solarlehren-ab-2024/
Holzer, Daniela. 2014. „Widerstand gegen (Weiter-)Bildung als solidarische Praxis? Zwischen Heroisierungen, begrifflichen Missverständnissen und gesellschaftspolitischen Möglichkeiten“. In Expansive Bildungspolitik – Expansive Bildung? Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06669-7.
Mariager-Anderson, Kristina, Pia Cort, und Rie Thomsen. 2016. „‘In Reality, I Motivate Myself!’. ‘Low-Skilled’ Workers’ Motivation: Between Individual and Societal Narratives“. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 44 (2): 171–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2016.1145191.
Prenzel, Manfred. 1993. „Autonomie und Motivation im Lernen Erwachsener“.
https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11174.
Rothe, Daniela. 2011. Lebenslanges Lernen als Programm: Eine diskursive Formation in der Erwachsenenbildung. Frankfurt/M.: Campus Verlag.
Schüepp, Philipp. 2017. Weiterbildung in Schweizer KMU. Resultate einer
explorativen Befragung bei 11 Betrieben. Zürich: SVEB (https://alice.ch/de/
informiert-bleiben/publikationen/).
Thole, Christiane. 2021. Berufliche Identitätsarbeit als Bildungsauftrag der Berufsschule. DE: wbv Media. https://doi.org/10.3278/6004730w.
99. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Paper
Ethnographic Research on Inclusive Education in North-South Relations – Exclusionary Methodologies Included?
Felicitas Kruschick
Leibniz University Hanover, Germany
Presenting Author: Kruschick, Felicitas
This paper discusses - on a methodological basis - how the entanglement of research object (inclusive education), method (ethnography) and researcher (myself) constructs research on inclusive education in North-South relations. In addition, this paper illustrates how this construction leads to a reproduction of exclusive dynamics within this field of research, by taking into account an Inclusion and Open Science (OS) perspective. These patterns suggest at elements of an ongoing and contemporary postcolonial context in terms of knowledge production, representation and equity. The methodological discussion is part of my PhD project on inclusive education practices in rural Ghana.
To begin with, doing research on inclusive education in an international context is of a human rights based and developmental interest, as both the UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN-CRPD) and the Agenda 2030 have politically and legally anchored inclusive education at the international level. However, doing research on this concept in an international context is problematic: both inclusion and dis/ability are considered to be contextually generated constructs that consequently differ from context to context. Both phenomena are themselves constructs that combine socio-economic, historical and politically shaped perspectives. (Singal, 2010, 2013) As a result, an a priori understanding of disability or inclusion is not reliable, so that the concept of inclusive education is limited to the contextual factors in which these phenomena are considered.
The need to discuss and reflect on contextual factors is of particular interest in North-South relations, which are characterized by issues of post-colonialism, power and inequity. This is not sufficiently pursued by academics. Consequently, the negotiation of inclusive education is described as a form of "('western') cultural imperialism" (Haskell, 1998) or as “from the West to the rest” (Grech, 2011). This aspect is hardly surprising, given that the concept itself results from reforms and developments of education systems in the so-called Global North (Global North is italicized to emphasize that it is a social construct based on a discriminatory ideology) (Werning et al., 2016).
It becomes evident that the theoretical negotiation is far away from an open, collaborative, and inclusive interaction that the idea of OS aspires to. By defining OS as a call for the democratization and decolonization of research (Chan et al., 2019), it becomes clear that the dominant norms within knowledge production create an exclusive, constant re-legitimization, in which diversity plays a marginal role. Hence, this closed research process does not fulfil the idea of a science that considers diversity, equity and inclusion as guiding research principles. This framework spans a field of tension where methodology, theory and epistemology need to be critically examined in order to achieve equitable representation, participation and diversity. (Bivand Erdal, 2019; Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018)
Furthermore, inclusive education theory in North-South relations points to methodological challenges: how is research ethically justifiable? Contextualizing my dissertation project on inclusive education practice in rural Ghana within the inclusive education theory and within the OS framework, I critically discussed the development of an inclusive research design in order to reduce exclusive dynamics. To achieve this, I address exclusion in several areas, which in turn may provide implications for an inclusive research process: object, method, and researcher. As outlined, the overarching research interest lies at both a methodological (I.) and a theoretical (II.) level:
- How does the entanglement of researcher (me), object (inclusive education) and method (ethnography) construct the perspective on inclusive education in North-South relations?
- How is the inclusive education practice adopted in rural Ghana?
Consequently, I will be able to present the inclusive education practice in rural Ghana as constructive, by considering both levels as influencing each other.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedSituating myself within the ethnographic paradigm (Atkinson, Coffey, Delamont, Lofland & Lofland, 2014; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2019; Sancho Gil & Hernández-Hernández, 2021), I conducted ethnographic fieldwork in rural Ghana twice for about two months each: in 2017 and 2019. During this time, I lived with a host family in a village of about 200 people, which allowed me to immerse myself in everyday practices, challenges and routines. After weeks of developing access through my constant presence in the area, I met Paul (anonymized), who was introduced to me by the villagers as a mentally and physically disabled boy. From this point on, I was allowed to accompany Paul to school, to attend lessons, interact with teachers and learn about other forms of schooling and activities. I took field notes during my observations and ethnographic interviews, which I then transcribed into protocols. I gained insights through both participant observation and observational participation.
The ethnographic paradigm itself represents a constructive process, firstly because of the observations based on the perceptions and perspectives of the researcher, and secondly because of the translation from what is observed to what is recorded in the field notes. Considering the concept of inclusive education as relational, I therefore had to work out the impact of subjective perspectives and the location from which they are observed. I therefore considered subjectivity as an epistemic value. As a result, I developed a personal style of writing ethnographic field notes in which I express subjectivity (Beatty, 2010; Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 2011). While research in this context runs the risk of reproducing a "from the West to the rest" (Grech, 2011) mentality at both a theoretical and methodological level, I am attempting to explore a way of considering the influence of myself within this research process in this way.
My empirical material is analyzed according to the Grounded Theory Methodology of Strauss and Corbin (1996) and Charmaz (2006), focusing on two different but related levels: the practice of inclusive education and how the observations and experiences affected me as a researcher and as a person. Subjectivity (emotions, irritations, uncertainties of action) became of great interest as a source of knowledge as the analysis gains an empirical basis that can be analyzed systematically, critically and self-reflexively. This step allows me to draw conclusions about (linguistic) images, 'othering' processes and norms that arise from my socialization.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsMy expected outcomes are based firstly on the level of knowledge production and secondly on the level of access to and participation in knowledge.
At the first level, I trace exclusive dynamics by analyzing my ethnographic data in focus (I), atmosphere (II) and formulation (III) and ask how they relate to the biases mentioned below:
I. What did I focus on during the fieldwork? What did I leave out?
II. What atmosphere does my subjective style of writing style create? How does it reproduce essentialisation? How (detailed) do I describe?
III. What kind of words do I use to describe inclusive educational practice? How do they contribute to processes of 'othering'?
At the second level, I distinguish between epistemic (a), structural (b), institutional (c) and personal (d) biases.
a. How open am I to ‘other’ forms of (embodied) knowledge? Beyond scientific assumptions, what cultural, historical or political conditions and perspectives influence the ethnographic paradigm and the research questions I pose?
b. How do I decide whom to cite in my research? Where will I publish and with whom will I share and discuss my research? Do I primarily cite researchers from the Global North?
c. How diverse are the interpreters with whom I work? Do I get heterogeneous perspectives on inclusive education and knowledge production? To what extent are my working groups defined by white, endo-cis male, able-bodied, middle-class and Christian socialized people?
d. How have I been socialized? How do people's external characteristics influence my evaluation of their work?
In summary, the exclusionary entanglement of researcher, object and method produces what I have termed ‘Knowledge Inequity’ within the OS movement. It can be seen as both a consequence and a cause of the “from West to the rest” mentality (Kruschick & Schoch, 2023; Steinhardt & Kruschick, 2022).
ReferencesAtkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. & Lofland, L. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of ethnography (Reprinted.). Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC: SAGE.
Beatty, A. (2010). How Did It Feel for You? Emotion, Narrative, and the Limits of Ethnography. American Anthropologist, 112(3), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2010.01250.x
Bivand Erdal, M. (2019). Open Knowledge Beyond Replicability – PRIO Blogs. Last access 8.12.2022. Available at: https://blogs.prio.org/2019/10/open-knowledge-beyond-replicability/
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Day, E. (2002). Me, My*self and I: Personal and Professional Re-Constructions in Ethnographic Research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Re-search, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.824
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I. & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (Chicago guides to writing, editing, and publishing) (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Grech, S. (2011). Recolonising debates or perpetuated coloniality? Decentring the spaces of disability, development and community in the global South. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.496198
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (2019). Ethnography: principles in practice (4 Edition.). New York: Routledge.
Haskell, S. H. (1998). Inclusive schooling: The contemporary cultural imperialism of western ideologies. Hold at the Second International Exhibition and Congress on Rehabilitation, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Kruschick, F. & Schoch, K. (2023). Knowledge equity and Open Science: An attempt to outline the field from a feminist research perspective. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8.
Sancho Gil, J. M. & Hernández-Hernández, F. (Eds.). (2021). Becoming an educational ethnographer: the challenges and opportunities of undertaking research. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge.
Singal, N. (2010). Doing disability research in a Southern context: challenges and possibilities. Disability & Society, 25(4), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687591003755807
Singal, N. (2013). Disability, poverty and education. London: Routledge.
Steinhardt, I. & Kruschick, F. (2022). Knowledge Equity and Open Science in qualitative research – Practical research considerations. Research Ideas and Outcomes, 8, e86387. https://doi.org/10.3897/rio.8.e86387
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen qualitativer Sozialforschung. Weinheim: Beltz.
Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: on writing ethnography (Second edition.). Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Vicente-Saez, R. & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043
Werning, R.; Artiles, A. J.; Engelbrecht, P.; Hummel, M.; Caballeros, M. & Rothe, A. (Eds.). (2016). Keeping the promise? Contextualizing inclusive education in developing countries. Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt.
|
