Abstract
The aim of my Master’s thesis was to explore alternative concepts of anerkjennelse (recognition), hoping to expand the ways anerkjennelse could be thought and done in the field of Norwegian early childhood education and care. I used auto ethnographic methods in a Norwegian preschool and worked with rhizoanalysis as a strategy for reading the data. I wrote within a poststructuralist paradigm, influenced by a range of critical theories. During and after this work, I was, and still am, haunted by the question: Was the (re)search rigorous enough to count as valid? The aim of this article is to linger a bit longer in that itchy state. Validity refers to the inferences drawn from the data, but the term validity is highly problematic after poststructuralism. Working within a poststructuralist paradigm of research, the intention was never to draw traditional inferences. What I did draw from the data was the readings done through rhizoanalysis, hence the task of this article: to revisit rhizoanalysis.
Highlights
If you don’t like the game; play it, but play it differently, you1 said
I was in Wonderland, stuck, and all the doors seemed too narrow to fit the aim of my thesis to explore and expand what recognition could be and do in the field of Norwegian early childhood education and care
In this article I will revisit some of the methodology and validity issues I struggled with while I wrote my Master thesis
Summary
If you don’t like the game; play it, but play it differently, you said. I was in Wonderland, stuck, and all the doors seemed too narrow to fit the aim of my thesis to explore and expand what recognition could be and do in the field of Norwegian early childhood education and care. In this article I will revisit some of the methodology and validity issues I struggled with while I wrote my Master thesis. I was in Wonderland, stuck, and all the doors seemed too narrow to fit the aim of my thesis to explore and expand what recognition could be and do in the field of Norwegian early childhood education and care.. In this article I will revisit some of the methodology and validity issues I struggled with while I wrote my Master thesis. I used auto ethnographic methods following Denzin (2003) in a Norwegian preschool (I will elaborate later) and worked with rhizoanalysis (following MacNaughton, 2005; inspired by Deleuze & Guattari, 1987) as a strategy for reading the data. During the time I wrote the thesis I dreaded my future examiners; I was afraid that my methodology choices would increase the chances of rejection. . Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology 2014, 5 Special Issue http://journals.hioa.no/index.php/rerm passing did not seem to make the nagging feeling pass. The aim of this article is to linger a bit longer in this uncomfortable state
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
