Yeah, you know that thing where I think out loud for the sake of my future self, and it probably makes no sense to anyone else...

One debate about my project -- which I think we're close to resolving -- is the nature of "rigor" in the results section. What does it mean for results to be rigorous and/or valid in a postmodern qualitative context? Since postmodernism doesn't specify a bounded ideology or methodology, the question really becomes what it means for my own results to be rigorous and/or valid, and I'm working (once again) to write that up.

I've spent a bunch of time and energy trying to define against what it isn't -- no, I don't need to "prove" my ontologies "came from" my data via a specified process -- but not enough time saying what it is, or where it came from. Okay, so these aren't the "right" or the "only" frameworks that could have come about. But as with an a priori codeset, I have chosen them to use, somehow. They are useful, somehow. At least according to my interpretation and my own meaning-making.

I have never felt so... inept... at making my meaning-making visible to others. I thought I was good at teaching, at explaining. At the same time, it is nice to know that I can always, always hone that skill.

So: thing to do (again) -- each of the next few paragraphs is a task, by the way (hello, future self!)

Research question rewrite. It's time to write out my results (in brief) -- again -- and look at them to rewrite my research question -- again. (Again. Again again again.)

Last two results chapters: revise for flow. For that matter, I want to take a tour through the last two results sections and massively improve their writing quality, and then look at the second results chapter and decide whether I need to expand the section that is currently just sitting there as an unexpanded table. Am I developing ideas in sufficient depth? Am I making things visible that I want people to see? Do I need to show those things to my audience in a number of different ways?

Articulate the four frameworks I'm using, and how they are related... in the literature review section, not the methods or the results (where they currently live). When doing this, explain why each framework is useful for looking at the data and my research question.

Separately from that, write a 2-3 pager on postmodernism, as I've used it in this project. What is it? What do I mean by it? Why am I utilizing it, and how did I come to do that? How does it compare to more common research approaches? (Components it will probably include: historical paradigmatic framing in qualitative research, brief history of postmodernism in general and some disclaimers on definition, the role of the reader, and discussions of concepts of self/world/other.

Shape up a discussion section at the end of each result. At the end of each results section, there's already a tiny discussion of that particular result. I can draw that out into a more deliberate discussion that connects out to usages of the ontology in broader literature. Right now, I mostly discuss affordances and benefits, but don't connect to broader lit in organized ways. This is where I can say: this way of thinking probably sounds familiar -- and here is why. Here's where you it's mirrored and you've heard it before: curriculum design, faculty development, professional identity, collaboration/partnership.

Move "methods" stuff from the first results chapter... into the actual methods section. All right. But it feels good to know my methods section is helpful and does clarify things, even if it is still a bit jargony. (It's particularly gratifying to hear that the examples I provided were, in fact, useful.) There's an implicit to-do here, which is that sections of my first results chapter actually belong in the methods section, so that's another thing to do -- find the general case I explain in the first results section (page 4 of that chapter right now), excise it to the methods chapter, and refer back to it at the start of each results section (but situated in each individual result, at that point). Surgery.

Make sure vocabulary for methods principles of analysis are in the lit review. The methods section is missing one last point: at the end, I discuss several principles of my methodology -- but I don't draw back to where they came from. So I need to make sure those things are present in the postmodern section of my literature review.

Freewrite on "faculty as learners." Another open question: I need to clarify how the "faculty as learners" language is still part of my writing, so I think I'll do that as a freewrite at some point and see where it will end up going. Maybe... a big handwritten page, a 15-minute timer. That should do it.

Freewrite on "employ the ontology." Another freewrite task: I use the phrase "employ the ontology" a bunch in the methods section, and don't immediately show what that means. I know I demonstrate it at some point there or somewhere in the first or second results chapter, so I can find and grab that text and place them next to each other -- or have them refer to each other, one or the other.

Put the cartoons back in. One task that will be gleeful and fun: I'm going to put my cartoons back into the results chapters. So: drawing, scanning, making sure they're well-explained. (They should be. Right now they are text, and visuals will clear the text up.)

These sprints aren't as clear as I want them to be. They are not prioritized, and there might still be too many. But this is a start.