Analyzing Methods, Data Collection, and Trustworthiness in Self-Study Research: A Content Analysis of the First 19 Volumes of Studying Teacher Education

ABSTRACT

Self-study researchers have periodically considered the essence of self-study, its objectives, its applications, and potential future trajectories. To address this imperative, our study undertakes a content analysis of the initial 19 volumes of Studying Teacher Education (STE), the flagship journal of self-study research. We focus specifically on the methodological dimensions of the scholarship featured in the journal, encompassing the spectrum of self-study methodologies employed, data collection techniques utilized, and measures of trustworthiness adopted. Through our analysis, we identify prevalent trends within each thematic domain, alongside an evolving consensus over time regarding the characteristics of high-quality self-study research. Nonetheless, we also discern persistent challenges concerning the lack of definitional precision and consistent implementation across diverse methodologies, data collection approaches, and trustworthiness measures. Echoing previous scholarship, we advocate for the establishment of a shared lexicon within the self-study community and the cultivation of explicit understandings regarding the diverse modalities of its application. Furthermore, drawing from our analysis, we introduce a typology delineating three distinct epochs of self-study research within the journal’s history while also envisioning the emergence of a fourth era poised to both reaffirm self-study’s foundational role as a form of counter-scholarship and chart innovative pathways forward.

KEYWORDS:

• Self-study
• self-study of teacher education practices
• content analysis
• research methods
• trustworthiness

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tom Russell for assisting us in identifying our measures of trustworthiness and for providing feedback on early drafts this manuscript. We would also like to thank Jason Ritter and Elizabeth Petroelje Stolle, who served as external evaluators for our analysis and provided feedback on early drafts of this manuscript. Finally, we thank the blind reviewers who provided feedback on this submission, and who challenged us to explicate some arguments more fully.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).