Am I confused or what?

Well, I think I might have a proverbial chip on my shoulder.  Most of the readings that I've been doing for the TESOL MALL grad classes -- regardless of whether or not I've blogged about them :P -- make me angry.  I seem to be reading with a preconception that I'm not going to like it (the article) or it's going to have stupid conclusions or I'm going to disagree, in whole in in part, with whatever the author is stating. 

This week's selection -- Chapter 5 'Five Different Qualitative Studies' in addition to 'Appendix B' -- is no different.  For instance, I'm usually one of the most un-PC persons in whatever situation I might find myself, but the use of the term 'mental retardation' in Angrosino's paper was. . .kinda cruel.  And for those of you who think I don't know what it means--yes, I looked it up, just to make sure I wasn't going to post something that makes me look like more of a fool than usual.  The term 'mental retardation' can be used within a professional medical context (i.e., health insurance or formal scientific research) but that's now--in 2012.  In 1994?--the term was considered offensive and derogatory.  Plus, the context in which Angrosino used is--as a narrative study within a social science milieu--isn't formal scientific research.  At least, not to me.  Anyway, why didn't he just call a spade a spade and title his publication 'On the Bus with Vonnie Lee--Talkin' with a Retard'?

And the phenomenological study (say that 5 times fast. . .)--I understand the ways and hows of the research, but what I don't understand is: when the authors asked the AIDS patients to draw pictures of their disease and only 8 patients out of a total of 58 in the study did so,  why did the authors include/integrate this 'data' in their final analysis?  Unless it was to prove a negative, as in, "the clear majority (93%) of AIDS patients in our study did not use a visual representation of their disease to cope.".  Creswell doesn't tell us how they used it, so I'm left with the impression that they used it to verify their findings, which just makes no sense to me. . .

That said, I think I'll probably try to use a phenomenological approach to my study question.  Or maybe grounded theory.  I'm not completely sure, but I don't think I want to have my question as firmly in the scientific realm as grounded theory would have to be.  For those who have just been calling on me to 'PICK A TOPIC AND STICK WITH IT, JANE!'--just letting you know, I think I've done it.  So, my topic / question is concerning the formation of teacher identity within the context of American EFL teachers in South Korean universities (AKA "Teacher!" "Call me Jane."  "OK, teacher.")