When I reflect on the journey within the doctoral program, I consider the Problem Identification Literature Review to be my largest undertaking. This paper was done in my EDU 9004 course, Focused Educational Studies. Prior to starting the program, I realized that one of the gaps I did not explore was the success around Black and Indigenous learners. While I had addressed the issue of racism and discrimination in my Master-level thesis, my participants did not identify themselves as such. Consequently, in narrowing my focus, I chose to explore the circumstances of student success for Black learners. This was a conscious act because at my present school, there has been a sustained effort to develop an Afrocentric cohort in mathematics. As a science educator, I believe this cohort may extend itself into the sciences. Therefore, I wanted to focus my literature review and dissertation on this very topic. That way, I can be equipped with appropriate, in-depth and meaningful professional development.
Through my coursework, I have come to understand that I must draw upon diverse perspectives. While there has been a colonization of Eurocentric voices and thoughts, these powerful forces may act as a way to diminish alternative perspectives. Consequently, prior to writing the literature review, I made a sustained effort to investigate literature from mostly Black perspectives. My first priority was to draw upon the local context. Locally, I leaned on scholarly work from multiple Black scholars (see Hamilton-Hinch et al., 2021; Mackey, 2018; Malinen & Roberts-Jeffers, 2021). For National contexts, I drew upon other Black scholars (see Codjoe, 2001, 2006; Dei, 2008). Finally, for American contexts, I utilized works from renowned scholars such as Ladson-Billings (2006, 2021). It is important to address that I limited my investigation to only Canadian-American contexts because, as Hamilton-Hinch et al. identified, the challenges faced by African Nova Scotian and Black learners are experienced in both nations. One may need to consider the possible cultural influences shared by being geographically neighbours to one another.
While developing the Master-level thesis, I wrote detailed notes on how I conducted the literature review. These notes described what worked, what did not work and what I would change in the future. Positioning myself on these invaluable memos afforded me the luxury of developing a preliminary working model. I leaned into the work of local Black scholars to develop initial themes. As I conducted research by first examining the local setting, then extending outwards to National and American contexts, I continued to build the model through several iterations, branching off ideas and perspectives as the model grew. As I acknowledged in my critical commentary artifact for EDU 9002, Methodological Perspectives in Educational Research (see Theme 1 Artifact 2), I did not want to repeat the same mistake by readily accepting everything. Therefore, I ensured to obtain citations from other scholars which either substantiated a particular statement or provided a counter narrative. That way, when I begin to analyze and articulate my own investigation, I have a holistic view of what possible things may be happening.
Fortunately, in a noticeably brief time span of three months, I went ahead by writing the initial draft using a model that will serve as the basis point for further expansion. While I accepted an openness to accept this work as an incredibly early draft, I was quite proud of the fact that I developed a usable first draft in a brief period of time. This should be contrasted to my Master-level literature review, where that early draft required over two years.
The literature review provided the necessary circumstances to address a multitude of doctoral program outcomes. While I cannot afford the luxury of having a mindset of comprehensive or thorough knowledge of educational theory at the forefront of educational studies, this is an evolving pursuit. What I know today eclipses what knowledge I had when entering the program. Therefore, at the heart of this growth has been a continuous devotion to critical self-reflection (i.e., reflexivity). This was particularly useful because upon my return to the classroom in May 2024, I scrutinized all of my actions in light of what I discovered through the literature review. I used the literature review as the basis for cultivating an inviting space for my Black learners. Additionally, I maintained a constant pursuit to learn new things and took advantage of any opportunity to gain experience, even at the risk of experiencing setbacks. That said, this noble pursuit defined my personal identity. Through my personal experience with this process, the literature review is an absolute necessity and should not be treated as a general requirement for any research—be it a thesis or a dissertation. What the literature review has equipped me with is a lens that I can see everything through. Not only it has, to this day, enhanced my teaching practice, but it will be crucial to support and reinforce my analysis as it will guide my interpretations, even with any conscious or unconscious bias.
The Education Research Forum (ERF) at St. Francis Xavier University is an annual online afternoon conference where emerging scholars within the Faculty of Education showcase their research works to the community. In early 2021, my Master-level thesis was progressing. As advised by my lead supervisor, I was encouraged to participate in the ERF so that I could develop not only my public speaking abilities but, also provide the context to receive critical feedback to support my thesis. Since 2021, I have participated at every ERF venue hosted by the university.
The ERF has been extraordinarily helpful. As I have described within my Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) artifact (see Theme 1 Artifact 3) and with an upcoming Curriculum Vitae artifact (see Theme 4 Artifact 3), the ERF afforded me the opportunities to enhance my public speaking abilities while being able to clearly articulate and communicate difficult ideas. When I make detailed comparisons between my early scholarly identity to that of my present one, it is like night and day. Not only has the ERF given me crucial insights but, I have also been able to respond much more confidently to constructive and negative feedback. This proved to be very useful at CSSE as I also received varying degrees of reception to my methodology and the research findings. However, without a doubt, if it was not for the ERF, I would not have been as prepared for my roundtable presentation.While the ERF venue facilitated an opportunity to emerge as a more confident public speaker, it is also loosely connected to supporting other facets of my scholarly career. Namely, the publication with In Education. As I described in my publication artifact (see Theme 2 Artifact 2), in June of 2024, I received notice that my submission required revisions while the initial feedback felt very defeating, I leaned into the early experiences with the ERF. My early involvement with the ERF also led to initial feelings of defeat. However, over time, the ERF implicitly gave me tools to overcome such challenges. Therefore, through such experiences, not only was I able to improve in answering difficult questions but it also reinforced my sense of self in fulfilling the resubmission requirements for my journal submission. At the end of the day, the ERF is more than a public speaking venue. It is an excellent opportunity to support emerging scholars on their graduate pathways. Whether it be speaking at larger conferences or, publishing work in journal repositories.
Thorough and detailed knowledge of a range of issues in their specific doctoral focus area theme(s).
Artifact 3: Education Research Forum (ERF)
Presenter at St.FX's ERF for the 2024, 2023 and 2021 Years
In-Depth Knowledge
Artifact 2: In Education Journal Submission
Journal Submission to In Education Based on my Master-level Thesis Research
Upon completing my defence of the Master-level thesis in June 2023, I purposely sought out ways to mobilize my research to appropriate knowledge users. This process began immediately after the PhD Summer Institute in July 2023. In the beginning of the process, I sought advice from my former committee members, which led me into several directions. Due to this invaluable feedback, I chose to submit an article to a Canadian open-sourced journal—In-Education. The rationale for choosing an open-sourced journal was primarily due to not having a doctoral candidate title, in addition to maximizing my chances of having my submission accepted. Because I spent a great deal of time, energy and focus in making sure my research was accessible to all knowledge users of varying abilities, I did not want my work to collect dust and end up in some sort of archive. Therefore, in addition to actively communicating tools and strategies to support learners (see Theme 4 Artifact 2), putting my research into a journal was very important to me.
In June of 2024, I received notice that my submission required revisions before acceptance. The feedback from the double-blind examination came from three reviewers (two Professors and one PhD Candidate). This was a bittersweet moment for me because while this was my first submission and it was not rejected, I initially felt a sense of harsh criticism. This was something I did not expect myself feeling upon reading through the feedback. While this critique significantly shook my confidence and sense-of-self, I ultimately decided not to give up. I chose to give myself time to digest and sort out my feelings. In the meantime, I sought guidance from mentors, colleagues and utilized personal reflection to help guide my path forward.
Admittingly, initially reviewing the feedback felt defeating. I could not bear to review the feedback a second time because every time I looked at the criticism, it felt as if I was reviewing my failure. I tried to ascertain why I kept clenching onto this perspective. Eventually, I came to an understanding that future publications will have these critical feedback and perspectives. I have now come to realize that this is part of the publishing process, and it is what all academics go through. I also recalled having varying types of feedback at the Education Research Forum (ERF) at St. Francis Xavier University (see Theme 2 Artifact 3) and how I initially felt receiving poor feedback to where I am now, being able to hold firm and remaining steadfast.
By August 2024, I began to examine the feedback line by line and now realize the critiques were fair and justified. Overall, this process was a very valuable learning experience as it helped prepare me for not only high-level scholarly writing but, it also equipped me with the experience and tools to receive differing and sometimes dismissive feedback. This artifact represents one of my significant epiphanies in guiding my path forward.
Being able to write and publish work has been a unique and valuable learning opportunity. I have embraced the notion of sharing my scholarly work and ideas, while accepting constructive criticism because such opposing viewpoints have also aided into my thoughts and future considerations. I do have the intention of publishing more scholarly work during and after my PhD.
PhD Student (Year 2) | MEd, BEd, BSc (Physics & Mathematics)
Artifact 1: Problem Identification Literature Review
Draft Version of the Chapter 2 Literature Review Section