Some points of discussion
1) Talked briefly about being back in touch with Setting 4, in Finland. Mentioned I am still awaiting the response from two participants (a parent and a teacher) but that all in all I was happy with the initial data transcription and analysis of the final setting being completed.
2) The manager from Setting 3 finally got back to me and was in 100% agreement that the 20 examples she looked through were trustworthy and could be seen to accurately reflecting children’s experiences in their setting as well as representing the Article suggested.
3) Showed my data, arranged in Matrix tables.
4) Chris mentioned I can reference Significant Events from my presentations at EECERA
5) Chris brought up BCU has raised issue of attribution, (1stauthor – me, 2ndauthor X, 3rdauthor XX, etc., last author Director of Study). Happy too do that for the EECERJ Article, for the Special Issue.
5) During the rest of the supervision we discussed my article and how to improve it
Structuring it in 3 distinct sections – theoretical concepts, methodology (Significant Events), Exemplifications
Introduction of an analytical tool
Mixed paper foregrounding theory; conceptual paper
Illustrations from my PhD
I still have doubts I will find common ground, with the editorial team ...
6) Concept of “adultism” brought up (well-intentioned adults) – see Azora’s PhD for references
7) I mentioned I would like to aim to submit this summer
8) Chris asked how I want to tell my story? What is the BIG NARRATIVE? What sub-narratives? I have to admit I have not given it that much thought so far, but will need to start thinking bout it. I always had in mind it would be following the 5P’s, each introduced with a vignette, or what van Manen calls an “experiential anecdote”, but it could also start from the emerging Significant Articles, and the theme each represents …
