Starting to revise analysis & discussion chapter, well it’s only 140 pages … last big chunk. Spending about 10 hours a day in front of the computer combined with four weeks of about 3 hours sleep a night, had some impact on my eyes and the last days I could have competed easily with the crazy vampire-movie-red-eyes, if this continues I won’t need a costume for Halloween. *she says cackling*
Revising analysis & discussion is a bit of a quest for boundaries. When is it sufficient? What can I certainly and confidently announce a finding? What is more of a hunch and where are these hunches coming from? Is there evidence for hunches – or are hunches what counts a empirical experience? In one Ethnography handbook I read about empirical experiences a tautological use of terminology in my world – yet it send me into several days of exploring. I only knew the use of empirical from quantitative research; thus found it initially confusing and startling as a term in ethnography, and in combination with experience. For in this context it is whether A) completely amiss or B) a tautology, and subsequently redundant.
My rather imperfect use of the English language occasionally sends me into research frenzies about terminology – completely out-of-bounds side tracking from my write up. Because I want to make sure I get it right; then again I overlook spelling errors like where instead of were, or if code switching goes fully astray wer, and not even realising the mistake.
All this leads to the topic of boundaries, too. How much time should I spend on a single term? I eventually completely deleted the deluded phrase from my literature review, as any clarification would have added to the word-count I desperately tried to cut.