BER 632 extended my qualitative preparation into the demanding terrain of qualitative data analysis and contemporary methodological theory. Where my first qualitative course grounded me in design and data collection, this course pushed me to think deeply about how meaning is made from data and about the philosophical commitments that underlie different analytic approaches. It challenged me intellectually more than almost any other course, and in doing so it strengthened my capacity for the kind of rigorous, theory-driven inquiry my dissertation will require.
The readings were genuinely stretching. Engaging with post-qualitative perspectives, including St. Pierre’s (2017) critique of the scientific model imposed on educational research and Freeman’s (2017) work on modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis, forced me to question my assumption that analysis is simply a matter of coding and categorizing. I came to understand analysis as an interpretive, theoretical, and even philosophical practice, one that involves thinking with theory rather than following pre-set procedural steps. Working toward a final theoretical paper gave me the opportunity to synthesize these ideas and to articulate my own developing stance on what counts as trustworthy, meaningful qualitative analysis.
This course had a lasting effect on my identity as a scholar. It taught me intellectual humility, showing me that methodological choices are never neutral but carry epistemological and ethical weight. For a researcher working at the frontier of emerging technologies such as generative AI and extended reality, where established methods are still being negotiated, that lesson is invaluable. BER 632 equipped me to approach data analysis thoughtfully and critically, and it deepened my confidence to engage with complex theoretical literature rather than avoid it.
References
Freeman, M. (2017). Modes of thinking for qualitative data analysis. Routledge.
St. Pierre, E. A. (2017). Post qualitative research: The critique and the coming after. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 25–52). SAGE.
