“Is There a There There?” Applying Self-Study Criteria to My Research

• In Event: When Knowing Is Not Enough: Critical Examination of Self-Study of Practice Methodology

Abstract

Purpose: This paper contributes to the discussion of quality in S-STEP research by raising and answering the question, in relation to one investigation—is this work self-study?

Theoretical framework: In the International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher Education Practices (Loughran, et al., 2004), LaBoskey (2004a) articulates and justifies a definition of the methodology of S-STEP. The purpose of this work, indeed of the entire handbook, is to demonstrate the viability of self-study as a research methodology for studying professional practice. Having done so to the satisfaction of many, I argue that part of the quality question can be answered by using LaBoskey’s characteristics of S-STEP to determine whether or not work is actually self-study. If an investigation includes all of the required characteristics, then it can be deemed Self-Study of Practice, and thus, legitimate research.

Methods/ Data-Sources: I explore the feasibility of this argument by analyzing a previous S-STEP of mine (Author, 2010), which is my data source. In the first phase of the analysis, I examine evidence as to whether, how, and to what extent the work includes the five characteristics of self-study. In the second phase, I deepen the examination by exploring whether and how the work extends our field by engaging in the next steps encouraged in the Afterword (LaBoskey, 2004b) of the handbook methodology section. I situate both phases within the context of the epistemological/moral shift that S-STEP represents.

Findings: I found ample evidence that my work does include all five of the identifying characteristics. Indeed, all were met in substantive and robust ways. What I also discovered is that these characteristics could, if not fully understood or rigorously applied, be necessary but not sufficient with regard to the question of quality. Now, this factor is addressed in the fifth characteristic having to do with validation as trustworthiness, but, as Pinnegar and Hamilton (2009) point out, the meaning of this need greater specification. I acknowledge that the LaBoskey list of criteria may not be complete and encourage us to expand upon these features. In this paper, I also discuss how the work does and does not take up the challenge of trustworthiness, which again demonstrates how the criteria can be used as a rubric to determine and improve quality in S-STEP research. Finally, in the process of revisiting the definitional work in this way, we can be reminded of what a significant epistemological and ethical shift true S-STEP represents. On the one hand, this means that we are sometimes critiqued on the basis of inappropriate criteria; on the other, it makes it all the more essential for us to fully elaborate our own standards of quality and apply them conscientiously.

Scholarly significance: The definitional characteristics of S-STEP methodology can be utilized in the determination and enhancement of quality in S-STEP research. Furthermore, they can help us to articulate and promote the desirable epistemological and ethical shift that true S-STEP embodies.

Author

• Vicki K. LaBoskey, Mills College