This journal entry is intended to highlight any themes or patterns that are emerging in my research so far, as well as any potential frameworks or flaws that may be useful to explore.  Since my previous entry, I have not done much additional reading of the literature, but I have begun assembling my research in the Introduction and Problem Statement.  Here are my thoughts at this point:

Themes and patterns: The main two themes, or ideas, that are particularly relevant in my research thus far are academic resilience and academic buoyancy.  An overall interest in why students persist and succeed frames all of my research thus far.  Also highlighted is the importance of cognitive and emotional attributes such as emotional intelligence, self-efficacy, and coping.  Less of the focus has been on institutional factors, which is where I’d like to direct my study.  Finally, there is a true international aspect to my research thus far.  Important studies in my literature review took place in Australia, England, New Zealand and Italy, and many of the U.S. studies have a multicultural focus.

Frameworks: What surprises me so far is the diversity of paradigms and methods used.  While all the studies on academic buoyancy and some on academic resilience are done within a post positivist, quantitative framework, many of the academic resilience studies are done from a constructivist, and sometimes transformative, paradigm.  What is strange is that in some ways, they seem to be taking place within two different worlds, since the authors site different previous studies.  It is as if two separate dialogues are taking place at the same time.

Flaws: I don’t know if I’m seeing flaws as much as gaps at this point.  For example, no research has been done on Martin’s concept of academic buoyancy in the U.S., and very little with university students.  At the same time, I’m unable to find literature within traditional student development/retention sources that distinguishes students who “bounce back” or exhibit resilience after previous failure.   This is one of the aspects of my study that really excites me, but it also means I have to cast a wider net for my literature review.  Also, while not a flaw, I’m less interested in pursuing this subject from the psychological framework that runs through much of the literature.  I much prefer a more sociological perspective that looks at how a student’s faculty, advisors, family, and social group contribute to their transformation.