Dr. Richards:
"What’s “real” here is the experience—the moment of realization—that this is not, in fact, an elephant. Stenner (2017) calls such experiences liminal. " [a quote from the proposal document, p. 71],  Hi Anna,  My interpretation of the term, liminal, comes from Latin-  in the doorway ---liminality- a state of hesitance. -a thresh hold--of course there are other ways of defining the term, liminality...

Anna:
Meyer and Land presented the threshold concept in 2003 specifically in the context of education, and their work has echoed through a number of doctoral education studies since then (i.e, Keefer, 2015; Trafford & Leshem, 2009). I am familiar with it, and I do find this direction interesting; however, the concept of liminality exceeds both its etymology and initial cultural anthropology framing in the rites of passage.I discuss the developmental trajectory of the liminality theory on pp. 71-77 in my proposal document.

Dr. Richards:
... My question: What is your  researchquestion? What will you explore? I am waiting for that answer and do not see it yet. I know as I read your fine work, I find myself wanting  research conducted. I want you to write a dissertation that will make a name for yourself- that will help you acquire a great job that you will love. More later

Anna:
I will wait until you finished reading. 🙂 I believe you will find your answers as you read!

Dr. Richards:
But what if reality is not single? What it there are multiple realities? [*a quote from my proposal, p. 18]  As qualitative researchers we (and you) know there are multiple realities. Janet

Anna:
"But what if reality is not single? What it there are multiple realities?" is one of my wonderments, a provocation that drives my inquiry.

I deem your reaction to it as a perfect case in point for my critique of constructivist epistemology, and its inappropriateness for research in the postmodern world (I cover this at length on pp. 36-39; 43-45); more specifically, constructivism stops at KNOWING (it is the limit of "epistemology"), and as it does, it blocks the entrance to thinking the world as multiple, ignoring the EXPERIENCE of multiplicities. This is the very problem (one of them) I am taking to the court in this chapter!

So, yes, I might KNOW that realities are multiple because I have heard ABOUT this idea sometime during my doctoral training and I may have even accepted it, but this knowledge is easily silenced by "so what?" So what if qualitative researchers (and I) know realities are multiple?

(!!!!  ALERT! Here comes one of the axiological assumptions !!!!)
This knowledge is neither put to work nor acknowledged in "conventional interpretive qualitative inquiry" (see pp. 19, 20, 25, 32 in my proposal) merely satisfied with acknowledging plural perspectives (afforded by multiple interpretations, as provided by the practice of hermeneutics) for understanding phenomena at hand, but ignoring that each interpretation opens a new reality.

This point figures in postmodern/posthuman/postqualitative critiques of qualitative research methods (although, they do not dwell on it as much as I do in my proposal), instead they tend to aim at the politics of research and its repercussions. (See "ontological politics" section in my proposal, pp. 40-60, although I braid this conversation with critiques of discourses many of which directly precede the emergence of postqualitative scholarship). I subscribe to this position as well, although I am more interested in the gap between "knowing" (epistemology) and "experienced reality"--the things we might in common speech refer to as "what really is or what is really happening" (typically delegated to ontology); in fact, it is a recurring theme throughout my discussion (pp. 57-60; 65-71), and it makes me want to theorize this gap with the notion of liminal experience and (even more precisely) "this is NOT" paradox (see my review of Stenner's critique of shallow empiricism on pp. 60-64) captured by the moment when what you "know" becomes suspended and left behind in the leap across the chasm toward something new, such as a new understanding.

In short, I respond to your comment with the question I just stated earlier: So what that you (and I) know realities are multiple?

Dr. Richards:
What’s “real” here is the experience—the moment of realization—that this is not, in fact, an elephant. Stenner (2017) calls such experiences liminal. Hi Anna,  My interpretation of the term, liminal, comes from Latin-  in the doorway ---liminality- a state of hesitance. -a thresh hold--of course there are other ways of defining the term, liminality. My question: What is your  researchquestion? What will you explore? I am waiting for that answer and do not see it yet. I know as I read your fine work, I find myself wanting  research conducted. I want you to write a dissertation that will make a name for yourself- that will help you acquire a great job that you will love. More later as I read. Janet

Anna:

This message is identical to the first message sent 10 minutes ago. So, I will wait until you finish reading the paper 🙂

On the second reading, I noticed this comment:
"I want you to write a dissertation that will make a name for yourself- that will help you acquire a great job that you will love" 

May I please use your comment as data for my dissertation? I talk about doctoral pedagogies, monsters of professors' desires (and why they are so important to me) on p. 9-11. Your comment is perfect--there is so much here that I would like to ponder some more!

1) In what ways will this inquiry add to the body of knowledge?

Which body of knowledge? If I am to stay true to the thesis I just presented–that is, that we live in the postmodern era where realities are multiple, then knowledge (that makes these realities possible) is not knowledge, but knowledges –plural. It cannot be a single “body.”

And so, my work is just another fragment, or maybe a starling in a murmuration of starlings (see van Cleave, Bridges-Rhoads, and Hughes, 2017, p. 740)

In either case, I hope that this fragment will add to ideas for conducting research with fragmented knowledges and multiplicities of the postmodern, posthuman, post-truth era.

…The ambitious, arrogant (and luckily, well-contained me(MeMeMe)) hopes to see my dissertation enter the singular body of knowledge as an infection, although the other me(MeMeMe)s realize this is a very tall order 🙂

2) In what ways would you describe the purpose of your study to others?

I want to re-read “doctoral student experience” as “liminal” experience as a way of grasping multiple realities and how they might be studied.

3) Explain your rationale for the study.

See Turner (1997)

Liminal monsters and dragons are compounded from various discriminata, each of them originally an element in the common sense construction of social reality.
(…) they have the pedagogical function of stimulating the liminars’ powers of analysis and revealing to them the building blocks from which their hitherto taken-for-granted world has been constructed.

But in another way they reveal the freedom, the indeterminacy underlying all culturally constructed worlds, the free play of mankind’s cognitive and imaginative capacities.

Synthesis, as well as analysis, is encouraged by monster construction! In many cultures, liminality is often the scene for immolative action which demonstrates, usually subverbally, this innovative freedom. Symbolic structures, elaborately contrived, are exhibited to liminars at most sacred episodes in the marginal rites, and are then, despite the time and labor taken to construct them, destroyed”  (p. 69).

4. In what ways does your proposed dissertation meet the needs of those who are new to qualitative research?

It depends. Ontological multiplicity makes it impossible to think about “those who are new to qualitative research” as a stable, knowable category of people with well-identified needs. In other words, I have to meet your question with the question, “Who are these people you speak of?” and “What do YOU think they need?” There is also a problem of power here: who am I to assume what the “neophytes” NEED, especially a priori, having never met them?

But if I am to take on the task of (re)thinking doctoral education (just as I proposed), I cannot just ignore this question… and neither can I ignore Ellsworth’s truth that ALL texts are written for someone.

so perhaps, I should begin by identifying my most desired audience: researchers interested in imaginative research. From this point, I can speculate that if these researchers are anything like me (MeMeMe), they will need to play, ask moving questions, and experience plenty of “this is NOT…” moments before they arrive at any liminal thresholds.

Of course, I cannot force my audience to accept my experiences, and I cannot reliably predict what they will experience as they engage with my work, but I hope to at least provoke a reaction–be it a new idea, or a critical comment (for example, “How is this research?!” because then it might lead to an inquiry into “what is research, anyway?” and therefore, a possibility of experiencing a “this is NOT” event).

 

5. In what ways would you explain the rationale for your study when you interview for a university, or “Museum” position?

It would depend on the position I seek at the University. And why a museum? Also, what type of museum?