Just adding these as they come to. I don't have a meeting in place yet - no need at the moment - but will record the questions anyway as a record.

Other questions to follow, as they come to me.

I've been a bit slow on this. Here are the notes from last week's meeting with Sian where we discussed my second draft lit review, dissemination, data analysis and a few other bits and pieces.

Some general comments:

• Really well written
  
• Nicely critical
  
• Done a great job on affordances – managed to say a lot in a short space
  
• Thorough
  
• Nicely structured
  
• Basically, it’s great and I should feel really good about it. It reads like a piece of scholarly work.
  

Gaps, weaknesses and room for improvement:

• There’s nothing on print dominance including the history. There is an identifiable print dominance in education. This needs to be acknowledged in my exposition section. If I’m going to make the point that it’s not all about print, I first have to recognise that it is significant. There’s a gap otherwise. What is essayistic linearity? Reshaping academic composition from what?
• Also in terms of historical context, maybe I need to talk in more detail about the way that texts were multimodal.
• I need to have more about the characteristics of multimodal text. What does multimodality do to text? This is what it can be like. I’ve only touched on authorship and there’s room for more.
• How have other people looked at how we assess multimodal artefacts? There might be some stuff out there. Worth looking for this, though. This should go within the ‘decomposing artefacts’ section.
• I need to write more directly in relation to my own research. At times it’s like I’m shying away from it. It’s OK to write directly – and in the first person – about the research project and questions within the lit review. I’m situating myself as a researcher, not aspiring to be objective – I’m doing some more interpretative.
  

Fitzpatrick?

• Is it worth looking at other examples of multimodal literature e.g. Darius Glass, Alisdair Gray, Tristam Shandy? I could maybe use screen shots.
  
• The dissertation form should reflect the content. Ideas should be presented in a particular way for a reason. For instance, there needs to be some significance to the use of soundtrack, even if it might take the reader some time to work it out.
  
• Is it risky to go for multimodal dissemination? No, it’s essential to present ideas multimodally considering my topic. Have a look at Matthew Preston’s web essay from IDEL a few years back (it will be on course gallery). Incorporates music. 
  
• Considering there are relatively few interviews, investing time in Dedoose might not be worth the effort as its purpose is to deal with data collaboratively. It also costs.
  
• Hyperresearch might be a better option than Dedoose, but maybe I should just use MS Word with hyperlinks for transcription.
  

Things to leave out:

• Stick to summative assessment frameworks, rather than trying to cover formative and summative.
  
• It’s OK to leave out the counter-linguistic turn due to lack of space
  
• Don’t go into digital authorship unless it’s a major theme
  

This will take place at 1.30pm on Friday 1 February. I need to submit my draft lit review in advance of this in order for us to have something to talk about.

I had a really positive meeting with Sian on Friday. She described my proposed research as "fantastic" - which was a surprise, even if I'm finally happy with the shape that it has taken most recently. Apparently I will be undertaking some much needed investigation into an area where a gap exists. This is great as it fits with my plan of offering something interesting to what is already out there, and hopefully coming up with something that people feel is useful or has some value.

Alongside a real sense of satisfaction, I left the meeting with a list of important task to be actioned, many of them this week. For clarity and convenience I've reproduced the list of tasks below.

ACTION: What is my theoretical position?
What's my position in relation to enquiry. Am I taking an interpretationist stance? If so (and this is what Sian suggests), it would mean that there would be less need for objectivity (compared to a positivist stance). By taking an interpretationist stance i wouldn't need to come from a position of apology. What I will need to do is say 'this is the position I am taking'. This isn't so much for now but will require a page when it comes to writing up. I need to read up scholarship of method, looking at the paper by Crotty, for instance.

Observation: how many crits would I need to observe?
Three should be enough to generate sufficient data, depending on how the observations go. To a large extent, this will be dependent on how many sessions I'm able to get access to.

Observation: Art and design or architecture?
Again, this will depend on whether I can get access to either. 

Observation: formative or summative assessment?
Again, this might depend on what or whether I'm able to get access. Formative would be preferable as it might make it less problematic from an ethical perspective.

ACTION: Observation: approaches to identifying art/architecture individuals
In Sian's words, the hard bit will be negotiating observations. I will try to identify appropriate key individuals as follows:

• Contact Jen Ross to ask whether the thinks anyone from the multimodal roundtable  would be suitable.
  
• Use my own work-related contacts. There's no harm acknowledging LEAPS in doing this.
  
• Sian will contact Dai Hounsell as he has contacts/has done work with colleagues from the College of Art.
  

ACTION: Interviews: who do I contact?
Contact and look to interview any member of the programme team who has experienced/used multimodal assessment. Do Sian first as a pilot. Contact Jen, Clara, Sian, Marshall, Hamish, Christine, Rory.

ACTION: Interviews: examples of essays
Perhaps look to use good and bad examples of assignments. Or to put it another way, one that worked and one that didn’t. Should need permission for bad examples (as output will be anonymised and I don’t intend to make this public) however consult with tutors. Good examples can be taken from the course gallery.

Who is my audience?
It’s more straightforward if I don’t look to publish publicly. If I was to do this at a later stage I could always seek retrospective consent for the weaker assignments.

ACTION: Literature review
I need to draft this by mid-Jan and send it to Sian ahead of our late January meeting. It gives us something to discuss. In terms of reading, I should focus on the theoretical (multimodal) reading to begin with, rather than the visual research which is more about the methodology.

ACTIONED Literature review: arranging a late January meeting with Sian
I'm to look at Sian's Outlook calendar (on Monday 17 December) and suggest a time for us to meet.

Literature review: resources to follow up

• Carey Jewitt from the Institute of Education. She's a big name in multimodal methods.
  
• Come up with a reading list for multimodality and a distinct one for visual methodologies.
  
• Colleen Mc…. Chapter 4 from the book I looked at last week  - there will be some useful references in there.
  

ACTIONED Revision to ethics form
Add a few lines to acknowledge that I'll seek written permission from course tutors and then oral permission for participating students for the observation stage. The completed documentation should then be sent to Sian who will then send to the university's ethics committee

Formal notification of commencement of dissertation
E-mail Jen to let her know, send her the dissertation proposal and then sign up for the course through Moodle.

Dissemination: rationale for digital dissemination
This can wait until later. It will be assessed. Unsure on whether this should be text-based. It will be 2000-words.

Dissemination: publication
Have a look at Vectors magazine as they do this kind of thing. Christine will also have some ideas.