the self-study stands a further chance of remaining trustworthy and following LaBoskey’s (2004) requirement of being improvement-aimed. 2.3 Brief statements of how the data and documents will be analysed In analysing the data and documents, a three-pronged approach will be taken. First, analysis will need to break down the research into categories. At present, I perceive that the categories of leadership, identity, role and emotions will be recurrent themes throughout the self-study. If these themes show themselves to be predominant, I will need to categorise what activities, situations, values, beliefs and biases fall into which category. Second, the data and documents will need to be scrutinised. I propose they be scrutinised under the leadership domains provided for by Reeves (2009), Appendix 5. The domains there allow for a leadership evaluation system that is both systematic and rigorous. Finally, it will be necessary to analyse assumptions and possible interpretations. In order to deconstruct the data, I will triangulate between the data received in interviews, data culled from the personal journal and analytic memos. All three need to be analysed for weaknesses or findings contrary to what has already been presupposed. 2.4 How this design deliberately plans for trustworthiness In order to design a plan that is trustworthy, it is necessary to list the criteria for trustworthiness at the beginning of the process. My primary approach will be through triangulation (Elliott, 1991); however, to further develop this process, I plan to utilise the five (5) criteria Phillips & Carr (2010) have outlined checking for trustworthiness in research. They are as follows: Criteria One – Evidence of Becoming; Criteria Two – Demonstration of Self-reflexivity; Criteria Three – Multiple Perspectives; Criteria Four – Strong sense of connection; and Criteria Five – Meaningful Action. As this self-study will incorporate narrative, Craig’s
the self-study stands a further chance of remaining trustworthy and following LaBoskey’s (2004) requirement of being improvement-aimed. 2.3 Brief statements of how the data and documents will be analysed In analysing the data and documents, a three-pronged approach will be taken. First, analysis will need to break down the research into categories. At present, I perceive that the categories of leadership, identity, role and emotions will be recurrent themes throughout the self-study. If these themes show themselves to be predominant, I will need to categorise what activities, situations, values, beliefs and biases fall into which category. Second, the data and documents will need to be scrutinised. I propose they be scrutinised under the leadership domains provided for by Reeves (2009), Appendix 5. The domains there allow for a leadership evaluation system that is both systematic and rigorous. Finally, it will be necessary to analyse assumptions and possible interpretations. In order to deconstruct the data, I will triangulate between the data received in interviews, data culled from the personal journal and analytic memos. All three need to be analysed for weaknesses or findings contrary to what has already been presupposed. 2.4 How this design deliberately plans for trustworthiness In order to design a plan that is trustworthy, it is necessary to list the criteria for trustworthiness at the beginning of the process. My primary approach will be through triangulation (Elliott, 1991); however, to further develop this process, I plan to utilise the five (5) criteria Phillips & Carr (2010) have outlined checking for trustworthiness in research. They are as follows: Criteria One – Evidence of Becoming; Criteria Two – Demonstration of Self-reflexivity; Criteria Three – Multiple Perspectives; Criteria Four – Strong sense of connection; and Criteria Five – Meaningful Action. As this self-study will incorporate narrative, Craig’s
ppbi_assignment_-_final.docx