Tag: teaching

Starting from scratch: Delivering Thematic Analysis sessions for the first time.

Daren MansfieldLeave a comment

Starting Thematic Analysis (TA) is a daunting task for most first-time researchers. TA is not something I have personally undertaken as part of my studies, yet it grew organically as most things at work do, taking root in the job and slowly but surely gaining ground. What had previously been taken for granted was now being overtaken with new ideas, fresh inspiration. Why did I decide to start running sessions for Writing Development on this type of qualitative analysis? It’s a slightly unusual story.

I had applied for an internal job at the University and one of the interview questions the panel asked me was ‘what methodology can you teach?’ I struggled to find an answer. It was a hot day and I felt under pressure to perform. It didn’t work out – I failed to get the job. I had to face reality – although I felt that I had bounteous experience supporting students with thematic analysis, it was never formalised. I never afforded myself the time to set aside and plan a session on thematic analysis as I was always too busy with back-to-back student appointments in my job as an Academic Subject Librarian for the Lincoln International Business School. I only worked for Writing Development three hours a week back then – not enough time to plan a new session or grapple with new concepts. Routinely I taught reflective writing or report writing year after year for Writing Development, with little option to broaden my wings and soar into unchartered territory. Starting as a full-time Writing Development Advisor last year gave me that opportunity.

That standalone interview question inspired me to think things anew.  Gone were days that the same old format would fit the bill. Writing Development needed new ideas, fresh approaches. Statistics about sessions on topics that we have not covered before far exceeding older, more established workshops. Students needed eye-catching variety, not an unquestioned itinerary of events. Our concept of the student experience is often far different than student needs and standing still could mean the format goes stale after a while.

How did I start? I conducted some preliminary research, pulled together some slides and met an academic from the Lincoln International Business School. We met and shared content, discussed ideas. What were the seminal works on Reflexive Thematic Analysis? Do you need to be a visual learner to carry out thematic analysis? Would this presentation work? It was a promising start: ‘I think students would really benefit from your workshop’ she said. Everyone needs encouragement, especially when embarking on something untested. It ignited my hopes of doing something different. I called it ‘Thematic Analysis for the first-time researcher’. No pun intended. Then I recorded the session and added it to the Writing Development site, before delivering a webinar on the slides. I subsequently adapted the slides and researched some more, adding richer depth to the content. I believed in a practical, step-by-step guide, envisioning students going through the same tentative stages as myself. During the first webinar, students popped questions into chat, generating ideas and different perceptions.

Diversifying what you offer is a key response to today’s unpredictable Higher Education climate. Statistics in this data-driven era has never been more scrutinised. What began as an unanswered question in a job interview eventually helped others embark on their research journey while sending me on a road of discovery which made the role more interesting and fulfilling as a result.

Ego Problems in Writing Support

gfreestoneLeave a comment

The ego is sometimes used to mean a kind of self-agrandizing principle of the psyche. Ego-centric can also mean that we focus on ourselves at the expense of others; this is a related but not identical meaning to the first sense. These differing meanings are related insofar as they both entail some psychic action by which we seek to prop up ourselves as individuals, one by self-promotion, one by self-interest. Both generally are related to a degree of insecurity in the individual in question. All people are different and have different histories; the ego level is contingent up various factors related to these differences.

A one-to-one support session is necessarily a meeting of egos. There is an imbalanced power relation between the student and the support worker. This is not an ego-trip itself, but a position of necessity. The student wants help with their writing and the writing support worker theoretically has the skills/knowledge to help them. This means it is not only a position of necessity but a position of responsibility, that is, the writing support worker is responsible for the student. Interestingly this means the power relation is more complicated than it first appears, for from this perspective the student is actually in control. They place the burden of their writing problems upon the support worker, whom they expect, to a greater or lesser extent, to solve them.

The initial manifestation of the support worker in this relation will be varied, but we all can be seduced by the desire to please, to be liked. Much more important than being liked though, is needing the student to trust us; this means we need to have (some) confidence in ourselves. If we project confidence, the student will trust us —unless we screw up so much that it’s painfully laid out for them to see. There is a difficult borderline (depending on our ego-structures) between the successful projection of confidence with the aim of inspiring trust and the confidence which inspires ‘being-liked’. We’re not supposed to care about ‘being-liked’ but because of the borderline, it can sometimes be hard to not do so.

I have often found myself lost in the early stages of a consult. Worried I won’t know where to go with it. Listening to the student, scanning the work. Looking to convey a mixture of honesty, but not so much honesty to give away the rising sense of ‘what to do with this?’ whilst also bringing the aforementioned confidence. I referred before to periods of quiet reading in the session that help let the problems in the work show themselves. These periods enable me to find a space in which any desire to be ‘liked’ can largely be eradicated as I get deeper into the work. Slowly seeing the problems emerge from the reading and talking about what they are trying to say, brings has a satisfaction that is not egoistic but only has its own satisfaction, like finding the solution of a puzzle on one’s own.

However this is not the end of the struggle. If the problems are successfully identified and a path forwards (that is not too disheartening) is found, then the student will often be very pleased. This pleasedness is then projected onto the the support worker in the form ‘being-liked’. Which is worse now, as it is not artifical (in the sense of inspired by the projection of confidence) but a genuine pleasure that their writing problems (for now) are resolved. It is course hard not to take some excess of pleasure in the pleasedness of the student, however it is to be avoided as much as possible.

The reason for this is that the classical issue of hubris is a very real one. If we allow the either spoken, or unspoken praise of the student to go in, then we may generate an attitude that will serve us very badly on another occasion. The projection of confidence, secure in the knowledge this is a contrivance is one thing, but the real thing is perilous. The tempered projection of confidence, should always contain the possibility of admitting to not know the way forward —a piece of writing for another time- whereas when hubris crashes into such difficulties the result will be an embarrassing mess, leaving the student lacking faith in the service and the support worker with another level of ego crisis to resolve.

Helping Students by Looking for the Animating Principle in Their Work

gfreestoneLeave a comment

After looking at many pieces of student’s work in a one-to-one setting, I’ve come to identify a kind of process of how my ability to help appears to work. What follows are some kind of reflective notes on this process. As my reflection proceeds I make recourse to a concept I am calling the ‘animating principle’ of the writing to try to describe what’s going on.

When working with a student the very first thing is to put the student at ease with a friendly introduction. Next I need to find out what they need help with. They may have quite a specific kind of issue, for instance they want to know how to be more critical in their writing, or it may be something more general like how to write more academically.

Knowing my own mind and abilities, I am aware it’s very important that the whole situation be relaxed. If tension exists in the system, this will impair my ability to read their work/understand their issue and hence to give any useful advice. Also since I now likely have to digest the issue, either from reading their work/brief/learning outcomes, I always feel I have to spell out that I’m now going to do some reading and thinking but that they shouldn’t worry about the silence. This is all about removing tension. I think it’s important to spell this out as, whilst it might seem obvious, if I don’t say it they may feel uncomfortable or even keep interjecting and neither of these are desireable —though interjecting might be later on.

For me, this initial reading may not be massively in depth. I am trying to keep my focus on reading carefully, whilst also taking note of how long the text is and also trying to bear in mind the issue they’ve asked me about. This can get more complicated because I may notice other problems with the writing. If these are outside the remit of the query, then there is something of an ethical dilemma. On the one hand I do not wish to gloss over aspects of the writing that need looking at, but on the other the session is finite, so if I begin to spread out into too many issues I may a) overwhelm the student with information and b) not cover the issue they came for in a satisfactory manner. The resolution of this may be to recommend another session or to check in with them as to what stage they are at in the writing —the student may be aware of some things and expect to pick them up themselves later on. Some form of acknowledging these issues is required though.

After this initial reading I may have a general sense of major issues and may be able to offer advice about the work. I am always aware (or rather I should be aware) that at this stage the student’s work will likely not have disclosed itself properly to me. So at this point I will relay my thoughts so far back to the student and talk to them variously about it. This will usually give me a deeper connection to what they want and let me see if I am working in the right area.

I will then make a second reading of the work. By now the work and the learning outcomes have seeped into me at a deeper level and I am able to see the work clearer. The areas of the work start to become clearer, the structural problems, the lacks of criticality. This stage will involve less intense silence, but there may well be some. Again if I am thinking for a moment I will let the student know, so they understand I am not just sat in silence.

It is around the stage of this second reading/talking that I find the truly fascinating part of the process occurs. What roughly tends to happen is that, if I have remained relaxed and open, absorbed the work/inquiry and applied thought to the issue (asking myself, what is needed here? what nudge does the work need to cohere?) the general solution/advice will disclose itself by a some means I do not pretend to understand. There is a moment when something clicks and then I have the strong sensation that the way forward is clear. From this opening, I will feel a sense of where the essential problems are in the work, and begin to work out advice on how they might solve them.

This does not mean I will not offer nuts and bolts writing advice. As stated, there is always a question about where do you should focus. However if we are trying to work on issues such as structure, criticality, analysis or flow, then though the individual problems may look extremely various, it is often the same fundamental issue that drives them. This is what I have elsewhere referred to as the lack of an animating principle in the writing.

The repeated readings and questions then, are probes that try to find the animating principle (or lack of one) in the writing. This is a kind of holistic approach, as the aspects we are taught about academic writing come much more naturally if the writing has an animating principle. Criticality for instance arises by itself if we are truly interested in the topic; our interest will make us question the veracity of statements in our desire for understanding. Likewise our logical coherence will flow, because we have a tale we are trying to tell and our rhetorical powers of persuasion (if appropriate) will also be improved because we are invested in the movement of the writing.

It is true that the animating principle is easier to track and utilise when the writing has hit a certain level. However at all levels there is still the question/title that has been set by the tutor. Engaged thinking about this question can help bring out an interesting perspective in a question that might appear quite uninspiring. Yes of course, there can be many issues that might need fixing at the level of grammar and spelling, but improving these details after engagement has been achieved (or even suffering them to some extent to work on over time) will still yield a better piece of work than simply mopping up the periphery.

Teaching the therapeutic relationship

Daren MansfieldLeave a comment

It is, perhaps, not talked about much in academic circles how much we learn from students: what they teach us in a variety of ways and support the staff-student experience is, indeed, underrated. Yet during the Covid-19 pandemic when we picked up our newly acquired laptops and headed home for an uncertain future, when teaching online was a relatively unknown phenomenon and MS Teams was (virtually – pun intended) unheard of, I realised this crucial interrelationship.  At the start of the pandemic (almost) everyone struggled with MS Teams and Wi-Fi connection. Yet Teams slowly became liberating. It was a highly flexible, convenient, responsive solution to not being on campus. On the other hand, it formalised the working day. Gone, it seemed, were the informal ad-hoc get together meetings with colleagues; ushering in a new code of conduct where meetings could take place in an instant. How would I ever sound genuine talking to a screen? Sometimes we would present to hundreds of students without seeing any of them.

One of the major obstacles to begin with was to sound like you are in a real classroom talking to real people. In other words, making the virtual classroom an authentic place of learning. Can this authenticity be achieved in a virtual world and the subtleties of an-person meeting be replicated? It took a while to realise, but student nurses came up with the answer – meeting them via Teams taught me a lot about the softer side of teaching. When writing their assignments they often refer to the NICE guidelines and one of its guiding principles – the therapeutic relationship (NMC, 2018). They taught me how to teach online. It was a revelation to learn how one of the central practices of the nursing profession could help me teach: a door had been opened into a new perception of myself and my tutoring role. I was about to apply the nursing code of conduct in teaching.

Though it may be little discussed, students educating tutors is fundamental. The qualities such as being authentic, trustworthy, approachable and honesty lends itself to a 1-1 setting (Wright, 2021). Why is the therapeutic relationship, and more broadly the principles of nursing, so key in underpinning the tutor-student relationship? It empowers the student to carry out their studies. They believe they are being listened to – not just another student writing an assignment – but as an aspiring individual wishing to succeed in their studies. It individualises the conversation, adding value to the meeting. Such a rapport makes them believe in themselves, ultimately giving them empowerment. The therapeutic relationship becoming an empowering tool remains one of the core elements of the tutor-student relationship, particularly in the digital age when humans and technology are increasingly blended, and an authentic experience is sought and thereby defined.

References

Nursing and Midwifery Council. (2018). The Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. Available from: The Code (nmc.org.uk) [Accessed 13th February 2024]

Royal College of Nursing. (2024). Definitions and principles of nursing. Available from: Definition and Principles of Nursing | Royal College of Nursing (rcn.org.uk) [Accessed 13th February 2024].

Wright, K. M. (2021). Exploring the therapeutic relationship in nursing. Mental Health Practice. 24(5): 34-41. Available from: Exploring the therapeutic relationship in nursing theory and practice (rcni.com) [Accessed 13th February 2024].