I met with Dr. Carter Waren earlier this week and she really helped me see a different approach to my topic. We discussed the ways to word questions in the surveys and she mentioned she would give it to her the students in her classes to fill out. We agreed to meet next wednesday at 1:30pm at her office. My primary reason for her interview is to learn about her views on the topic of my paper. She teaches religious courses at the University and is very engaged in dialogue with her students. In fact, I remember it being a requirement in her class to meet with her at least once throughout the semester. She seemed really enthusiastic about helping me with my paper.
I spoke with our new priest, Father Loubriel, in the campus ministry in Kennedy. He also said he'd be interested in an interview. I believe he can offer his perspective on the students' engangement in religious practice. I will speak to him this week to set up a time and a date. Then I will email him.
I also want to choose students to interview but am not sure how to make my selection or if I should simply stick to the surveys.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
my.. progress?
My original idea for this paper revolved around the psychology of God. How religion may have been used to influence people’s ideas and actions. In doing so, I hoped to contrast the role of God in the lives of individuals in western culture today. What I did know for sure was that I didn’t want to make this a paper on religion, but rather psychology.
The problem: how broad my topic was. This research paper requires me to conduct surveys and interviews; therefore I need a group of people I can observe and question. My topic eventually became “The Role of God in the Lives of Students at St. Thomas University”. At first, I was satisfied with the topic because it still centered on my general idea: the psychology of God. But when I began doing research, I became not only uninterested, but annoyed with it. I found that the UCLA was conducting a very similar study nationwide entitled: “The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose”. The surveys they’ve conducted could serve as a sort of blueprint (or should I say guide) for the questions I could provide in my own survey.
I remember the analogy used in one of the first readings for this class, the one comparing a research paper to a conversation in a parlor. Upon entering, you realize the conversation has begun. You listen and learn enough until you’ve acquired enough knowledge to form your own conclusions and take part in the discussion. However, whenever I’ve tried to work on this topic, I just wanted to leave that parlor.
Some of the questions in the UCLA survey consist of the students’: interest in spirituality, search of meaning/ purpose in life, having discussions about this with their peers, attending religious services, belief in God, and prayer. Another part of this survey sought to find correlation between the students who reported high engagement in religious/spiritual activity and their support/opposition for: legalized abortion, casual sex, same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana. Furthermore, another section analyzed these students’ views on issues of race, the rights of criminals, women’s roles, and gun control.(http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/news/Spirituality_2003-11-21.pdf)
The people I would interview for this research paper would be students attending this university. My interviews would consist of, not only these students, but also the faculty here, especially those in the ministry department, such as Carter-Waren. I know she is a professor who is very engaged in dialogue with her students and should thus be somewhat familiar with their views and how altered in the past few years.
Dr. Dvorak recommended the movie Religulous, but at the time it had not been released on DVD yet. It is out now, so I plan to rent it when I get back home tomorrow.Today, I was looking around the STU library books for sources for another paper and came across a book entitled “The Death of God” by Gabriel Vahanian. I started reading it and became really interested in it. This got me thinking about my research paper and my original idea for the topic. I want to find a way to incorporate this book and that movie into this paper. Maybe I should change the topic somehow or alter certain aspects of my research.
The problem: how broad my topic was. This research paper requires me to conduct surveys and interviews; therefore I need a group of people I can observe and question. My topic eventually became “The Role of God in the Lives of Students at St. Thomas University”. At first, I was satisfied with the topic because it still centered on my general idea: the psychology of God. But when I began doing research, I became not only uninterested, but annoyed with it. I found that the UCLA was conducting a very similar study nationwide entitled: “The Spiritual Life of College Students: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose”. The surveys they’ve conducted could serve as a sort of blueprint (or should I say guide) for the questions I could provide in my own survey.
I remember the analogy used in one of the first readings for this class, the one comparing a research paper to a conversation in a parlor. Upon entering, you realize the conversation has begun. You listen and learn enough until you’ve acquired enough knowledge to form your own conclusions and take part in the discussion. However, whenever I’ve tried to work on this topic, I just wanted to leave that parlor.
Some of the questions in the UCLA survey consist of the students’: interest in spirituality, search of meaning/ purpose in life, having discussions about this with their peers, attending religious services, belief in God, and prayer. Another part of this survey sought to find correlation between the students who reported high engagement in religious/spiritual activity and their support/opposition for: legalized abortion, casual sex, same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana. Furthermore, another section analyzed these students’ views on issues of race, the rights of criminals, women’s roles, and gun control.(http://www.spirituality.ucla.edu/news/Spirituality_2003-11-21.pdf)
The people I would interview for this research paper would be students attending this university. My interviews would consist of, not only these students, but also the faculty here, especially those in the ministry department, such as Carter-Waren. I know she is a professor who is very engaged in dialogue with her students and should thus be somewhat familiar with their views and how altered in the past few years.
Dr. Dvorak recommended the movie Religulous, but at the time it had not been released on DVD yet. It is out now, so I plan to rent it when I get back home tomorrow.Today, I was looking around the STU library books for sources for another paper and came across a book entitled “The Death of God” by Gabriel Vahanian. I started reading it and became really interested in it. This got me thinking about my research paper and my original idea for the topic. I want to find a way to incorporate this book and that movie into this paper. Maybe I should change the topic somehow or alter certain aspects of my research.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
objective observation
I chose to observe the Law School at St. Thomas University. I chose this place because I knew it would most likely satisfy all, if not most, of the 5 senses.
At the beginning I sat with Alexis in the northern tables of the Law school courtyard. Towards the end, I walked around to see if the different angles would alter my view of the environment I found myself in.
I was conducting and objective observation and remained as unnoticed as I could. I believe it's important to first observe subjects in their natural environment, without involvement from the researcher. This way you can understand how they behave naturally and then, once you perform and involved observation, the changes and affect of your intervention is more apparent.
Originally I planned to use my phone as a means of recording my observations. Primary for convenience, because I didn't have a pen or paper on me. But, most importantly, it would contribute to my objective observation because I could pretend to be text messaging and thus go unnoticed more easily. But, since Kevin provided me with a pen and paper, I used those.
I recorded my notes in bullets, with numbers as introduction (1. sight 2. smell 3. taste 4. hearing 5. touch).
The first thing i focused on was the environment. The courtyard consisted of multiple tables and chairs. In the middle, was a big plant that rose towards the second floor (which was visible in the middle of the courtyard). Flags surrounded this space in the center, representing multiple countries. The surrounding offices had glass separating their interiors from the courtyard, hence they were easily visible to the students there. These consisted of: the law school library, the cafeteria and the student center. The stairs were visible. Two hallways led to hidden bathrooms and later to classrooms. There was a long table where 3 ladies with laptops sat, the sign on the table read "BLSA Student Organization". There were also posters on the walls reading "Vote for... for Secretary" and so on. A banner read "Summer in Spain program". The set up of the courtyard provides two exits, producing the vacuum air effect (ventilation). On both ends of the couryard (as well as within) nature in emphasized; plants, trees, bushes (the color purple within the scenery).
There were few people present at the courtyard yet, despite their engagement, they were all really scattered. No two groups were sitting close together. One group consisted of four people actively engaged in a casual conversation. They were discussing the "fault in law..". One seldomly interrupted the other and, when this occurred, the former resigned. Two men were standing towards one end of the law school and in the other was a man smoking while texting.
The smell consisted of the law school bakery.
At the beginning I sat with Alexis in the northern tables of the Law school courtyard. Towards the end, I walked around to see if the different angles would alter my view of the environment I found myself in.
I was conducting and objective observation and remained as unnoticed as I could. I believe it's important to first observe subjects in their natural environment, without involvement from the researcher. This way you can understand how they behave naturally and then, once you perform and involved observation, the changes and affect of your intervention is more apparent.
Originally I planned to use my phone as a means of recording my observations. Primary for convenience, because I didn't have a pen or paper on me. But, most importantly, it would contribute to my objective observation because I could pretend to be text messaging and thus go unnoticed more easily. But, since Kevin provided me with a pen and paper, I used those.
I recorded my notes in bullets, with numbers as introduction (1. sight 2. smell 3. taste 4. hearing 5. touch).
The first thing i focused on was the environment. The courtyard consisted of multiple tables and chairs. In the middle, was a big plant that rose towards the second floor (which was visible in the middle of the courtyard). Flags surrounded this space in the center, representing multiple countries. The surrounding offices had glass separating their interiors from the courtyard, hence they were easily visible to the students there. These consisted of: the law school library, the cafeteria and the student center. The stairs were visible. Two hallways led to hidden bathrooms and later to classrooms. There was a long table where 3 ladies with laptops sat, the sign on the table read "BLSA Student Organization". There were also posters on the walls reading "Vote for... for Secretary" and so on. A banner read "Summer in Spain program". The set up of the courtyard provides two exits, producing the vacuum air effect (ventilation). On both ends of the couryard (as well as within) nature in emphasized; plants, trees, bushes (the color purple within the scenery).
There were few people present at the courtyard yet, despite their engagement, they were all really scattered. No two groups were sitting close together. One group consisted of four people actively engaged in a casual conversation. They were discussing the "fault in law..". One seldomly interrupted the other and, when this occurred, the former resigned. Two men were standing towards one end of the law school and in the other was a man smoking while texting.
The smell consisted of the law school bakery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
