A Review of the Conception of My Comprehensive Research and Scholarly Portfolio

Not all those who wander are lost:

The narrative of imagination, breakthroughs and the unexpected

I recently rewatched the 2001 film version (Jackson, Osborne, Walsh & Sanders [producers] and Jackson [director]) of J.R.R. Tolkien`s (1999) The Fellowship of the Ring with my twelve-year-old son and my thirteen-year-old daughter, and I was drawn to the description of the letter that Gandalf addressed to Frodo Baggins. It still echoes in my head: Not all those who wander are lost. These words caught my attention again when they were repeated later in the movie, by Bilbo at the Council of Elrond. I am glad that my children asked me to join them in watching this film because the “scenic journey” of my PhD is situated and embedded in that sentence: I am a wanderer, but I am not lost.

The movie was a welcome interruption to my scholarly routine, and brought home the point in dramatic fashion, because—I admit it—I do feel lost at times. The film also allowed me to see something about my situation that the ordinary course of life hides, namely the fragility of our work in becoming an academic scholar; the dependence we have on things external (and internal) to us as we make this journey is thus made manifest. It is that even in the ordinary movements and exchanges with the world that we initiate, or during the meticulous and well-planned immersion in scholarly studies we carry out, there are times when we all feel insecure about our identity as academics and our objective in pursuing doctoral studies.

Since I enrolled in the PhD program in 2016, my intake of knowledge has increased exponentially, and my urge to know more is at an all-time high, yet I occasionally feel frail at the same time. It is an interesting, somewhat mystical, state of existence. I have come to realize—and I thank my children and Tolkien for this—that the act of engaging in scholarly work is not only about being satisfied, feeling pleased, or experiencing contentment with one`s results. It is also about recognizing that two opposite perspectives—gaining confidence and expertise as a scholar while feeling insure about my work and how I am directing my time towards my studies—can be perfectly compatible with one another. As I ask, “Should I presently be doing something different from what I am now doing?” Sartre`s (1957) comments on the burdens of self-determined autonomy are relevant to note here. In his seminal book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, Sartre (1957) repeatedly wrote that humans are “condemned” to be free; what he meant by this was that, among other things, the possession of freedom is arduous and upsetting. It can generate existential angst, restlessness and anguish. One of my teachers at Mount Saint Vincent University told me that in the doctoral program we create. The notion that our doctoral dissertation will be a creation was exactly what I wanted to hear; it captured the very essence of what it means to be a scholar.

Obviously, I seek to place this statement in the context of my current assignment, the Ph.D. Portfolio, and draw upon Jesson, Matheson & Lacey (2011) to confirm that the ontology of my activity at present is to learn how to create a compilation of artifacts that pertain to the process of intellectual learning in five principal competency areas: general knowledge, in-depth knowledge, research knowledge, professional-collegial, and teaching-instruction. The artifacts that comprise the portfolio selection are works chosen from my doctoral courses as characteristic of my emergent inquiry and engagement within the Ph.D. program of study. Additional original artifacts allow me to put in perspective the journey that I have taken so far and the experiences I encountered through a very intensive period of acquiring knowledge.

When I first envisaged my doctoral portfolio, it was not among my plans to create an academic website. However, as technical skills in scholarly profession are more essential than ever, I decided to design a website pertaining to my scholarly work that extends beyond the premises of the doctoral portfolio. This will enable me to create a presence in the web-based community where I can communicate my educational researcher propositions and professionalism, network with likeminded colleagues, engage in discourse about research and, importantly, allow my credentials to be effortlessly accessed and considered for both the academic and non-academic job markets.

What follows is the explanation of the competency areas and the relevant artifacts for the scholarly portfolio. In each section—general knowledge, in-depth knowledge, research knowledge and competencies, professional and instruction competencies, and teaching and instruction competencies—I introduce specific artifacts and briefly detail their essence. Next, I provide further discussion of key concepts as part of my narrative, and then conclude by setting my discussion into a different, perhaps larger, context and inviting the reader to establish a sense of closure by reiterating the question I used in my narrative: “Who are you?”

In the General Knowledge area, I have included three artifacts. The first of these is my Academic Curriculum Vitae. Developing this document has enabled me to reflect upon the different components of learning to become a scholar. The second artifact is the one that took the longest time to write; the Annotated Bibliography presents a selection of ten academic books from the larger list of books that I have read since beginning my studies as a doctoral student. I have selected these because they serve as a resource for my general knowledge for future research. The third artifact in this area is a book review of Fay’s (1987) Critical Social Science: Liberation and its Limits. I submitted the initial draft of this book review while taking the Doctoral Seminar: Contemporary Educational Theory course (GEDU 9003) at MSVU, but have reworked it as I have continued to read and reflect upon numerous critical questions pertaining to the evolution of a critical approach to social science and education.

In the In-Depth Knowledge area, I have included three artifacts that show my emergent thorough knowledge of my own specific doctoral focus area. Artifact four is a roundtable proposal presented at the national Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE) conference, in June 2018, at University of Regina, Saskatchewan. It is important to note here that I am working on this study with my colleague Ph.D. candidate Scott MacPhail.  We also presented further findings at the 4th Regional CASAE conference held this fall at Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, and then, most recently, we submitted an abstract entitled “Developing an Emergent Pedagogy for an Academic Writing Group: Bridging Theory and Practice” to the national conference of CASAE, scheduled for June 2019, at University of British Columbia, Vancouver. This document can be accessed on my website under the Home/Current Work/Research section (https://www.andraskocsis.com/research). This study is a work to be developed further, a progression that stems from the period of the past two years, when I took time to strengthen my academic writing skills. As I was doing this, the opportunity arose to create and facilitate a community of scholars who find value in interactions based on strategies that improve our academic writing skills. Together with my co-facilitator, we situated ourselves between students and faculty and created a structure to govern our activity with graduate students. It is our firm intention to submit our final paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal by the end of next year. This work will provide the foundation to my commitment to ongoing publication. Artifact five, the “Evaluative Review of Multiliteracies: New Literacies, New Learning”, is a framework that fits as a theory that helps one to understand different approaches to literacy. I first investigated this framework during my Master of Education thesis, and the repeated exposure to it allows me to further anchor educational theory to service the research of my doctoral dissertation. Navigating through this particular framework has been a significant learning experience for me, because it is helping me develop a language with which to talk pedagogy in the context of educational theory. Scoping literature reviews can help to identify gaps in literature and determine themes or topic areas that may inform future research. The sixth artifact was inspired by the course Focused Educational Studies (GEDU 9004), and my aim was to carry out a comparative analysis of critical theoretical perspectives that may provide insights into how educators can develop the capacity to critically engage in learning across their lifespan in order to inform their own teaching practices. The rationale behind my choice of the sources anticipates the comparative nature of my dissertation and will convey the gist of my argument, which necessarily follows from my frame of reference—the individuals cited in my reference list are the ones with whom I converse and argue.

While all the above entries, to some degree, provide an insight into my competencies as a researcher, the Research Knowledge area is significant in that it provides doctoral students an opportunity to demonstrate research competence and the ability to engage in critical analysis. Here, I have just one artifact, a paper that emerged from the Advanced Research Seminar: Focus on Methods (9005) course. I feel that this is the area on which I most need to work in the upcoming months as I develop my doctoral dissertation proposal and decide upon the actual research methods that I will use to explore my topic. Artifact seven is a paper that focuses on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), a methodology for analyzing social phenomena that is qualitative, interpretive, and constructionist. CDA will provide a solid methodological framework for my upcoming research, which will be to understand that social reality is not something that we, as social scientists, merely uncover, but rather something that we actively create through meaningful interactions. A challenge I look forward to facing in my dissertation is the issue of how I might accommodate, methodologically, the dynamism of socially constructed meanings and the constantly changing realities.

The purpose of the Professional and Collegial Competencies area is preparation for active professional engagement and the demonstration of a range of professional academic and collegial competencies. I have included Artifact eight, which pertains to my work helping to organize the 4th Regional CASAE conference, review abstracts, and co-edit the book of abstracts. I enjoyed the social process of preparing and attending this conference, which was held at Mount Saint Vincent University in October, 2018. I had the opportunity to engage with fellow doctoral and masters students and faculty both within and across a variety of educational research areas, which in turn has added to my academic development. Artifact nine is the link to the Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education (CJSAE) where I reviewed two papers. It is a tremendous opportunity to keep abreast of current research, impress editors at elite journals, and hone one`s critical analysis skills. It certainly has taught me how to review a manuscript, spot common flaws in research papers, and improve my own chances of being a successful published author.

In the Teaching and Instruction area I have begun to develop the artifacts that would be included in a Teaching Dossier. Artifact ten is my Philosophy of Teaching statement, which summarizes my perspective on education and my outlook on life as it is lived in schools. Artifacts eleven and twelve are course outlines I designed for university-level courses that I have been given the opportunity to teach as a doctoral student in the B.Ed. program at MSVU. Last year I had the chance to teach the Philosophy of Education course, and for the 2019 winter semester I have been offered contracts to teach two sections of the course Curriculum and Instruction in Social Studies for the Elementary School. Given my background as a teacher, I see such opportunities as an important part of the doctoral program in education, providing valuable experiences, resources, and learning aspects that help doctoral students to become skilled teachers and to develop their scholarly identity. My teaching approach included lectures, group discussions, exercises, case studies, and interactive learning to enhance critical thinking. The final artifact thirteen that I include in my teaching competencies also connects to some of the research on which I have presented; it relates to my doctoral assistantship work during which I have co-facilitated a Graduate Writing Group to support graduate students as they develop their academic writing skills.

For me, the development of this portfolio represents a process of personal and intellectual growth, where uncertainties can begin to be settled. If my Portfolio guides me well, my academic journey will hopefully culminate in an opportunity for me to be hired as a professor. My goal is to continue to pursue my interests in being a scholar who is at the same time a committed educator and a researcher, and who contributes to both the field of Education and to the broader community through service and collegial work.

In making pathways through this world of academia I shall be leaving footprints as I pass along—hence the creation of my Portfolio. Greene (1995) notes that one of the fundamental anxieties humans have is of going through life and leaving no mark; that “anxiety is what induces us to devise projects ourselves” (p. 16). On this point I respectfully disagree with Greene. Anxiety is not what drives me forward; what keeps me going is the capacity that signifies “search” and being drawn to an intellectual quest even while I am overcoming barriers as I pursue my work in the areas of research, of teaching, and of service.

The PhD Portfolio—a scholarly work in its own right—is intended as a means for students to develop and demonstrate their research and scholarly competencies, and for the researcher to advance their personal and intellectual growth. For me, it is a systematic inquiry into critical theory, allowing me to be aware and interpret what is already known, and to point out the contradictions and gaps in existing knowledge. My aim was to be original, to conceive new dimensions, and design fresh perspectives. To create.

As a novice scholar, I am intrigued with the ideas raised by critical and philosophical thinkers who have explored theoretical insights necessary for understanding how (detrimental) scenarios that hamper democratic educational practices keep emerging in our lives, despite our best efforts to prevent this. Given the dangerous social ramifications of neoliberalism, especially evident since the 2008 global financial crisis, this is very worrying. In schools and in higher education there is a tendency towards convergence, e.g., same guidelines, same outcomes, which may limit opportunities for authentic learning and the autonomy of the educator. In the higher education system, the effect of globalization has been to create pressures towards convergence. In schooling, teachers are given far more direction! Does not that limit their freedom? The neo-liberal learning discourse promotes learning (knowledge) as an exclusive view rather than a complex and multiple concept with many possible interpretations. In the neo-liberal approach, the emphasis is placed upon market-driven patterns of social change, and evidence suggests, as Giroux (2014) points out, that a deeply rooted crisis unfolds in education.

Kettley (2010) argues that “the crisis in theory building in education studies arises from the failure to encourage original interpretations” (p. 9). Literally speaking, as I have engaged in this in-depth reading of various scholarly ideas, I had to challenge myself. Through creative imagination and personal cognitive ability, I allowed myself to theorize and speculate about future social activity. I ventured from the known into the unknown (Dewey, 1934), took a leap of faith as it were, or as Fay (1987) calls it I began incorporating components of (critical) social science paradigms. I went from seeing language as an abstract to seeing our words as having a particular historical, social, and political context. More importantly, I began looking at the future, as we all should, but at the same time I discovered discourse with what Greene (1995) calls the “contemporary educational reality.” How can I, as an educator and social-scientist-to-be, “intervene” and say how things ought to be? The simple answer is: through my research. In my research I am interested in exploring the question, should educators have complete freedom in the pursuit of their work? Why is excellence determined by everybody doing everything the same way? As an extension to this, I am also concerned that if we limit the opportunities for learning, we limit the conceptualization of language. I am perturbed that many in positions of governance are using neo-liberal generated education policies with little regard for the ways they impact lifelong learning discourses. In my research project, as noted earlier, I will use critical discourse analysis (CDA) informed by critical theory to expose the limitations with which teachers/educators practice their profession in the educational system. Britzman`s (1991) words, “everything depends on the teacher”, will echo throughout my work as I analyze and expose the discourses shaping the educational epistemology.

As I continue to decide upon how my doctoral dissertation will unfold, I am still consumed by how different modes of seeing perspectives are shifting. The vision of seeing things, through my research, whatever the precise vantage point is, stems from Shakespeare`s metaphor in The Tempest, Act 5, Scene 1, “Oh, wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world…” Both Greene (1995) and Dewey (1996) note that there are significant restructuring movements underway today in our field of work that do not require educators to “choose between seeing big and seeing small; nor does it require them to identify themselves as people concerned with the conscious action that signifies a new beginning” (Greene, 1995, p. 12). These emerging moments leave spaces for reflection and significant restructuring opportunities.

To approach educational research, teaching, and service—the three pillars upon which the PhD Portfolio rests—is, I believe, a multifaceted affair. In addition, as Kettley (2010) notes, the creation of social explanations is “ultimately about the imaginative application of methodological procedures” (p. 9), and interpretive strategies by the researcher. When I theorize, I talk about openings, possibilities, and about moving in quest and in pursuit. Dewey (1996) and Greene (1995) point out that there are always vacancies, roads not taken, vistas not acknowledged, and invisibilities to be broken through. This captures Shakespeare’s enigmatic hint in that the (re)search must be ongoing in order to “cultivate multiple ways of seeing and multiple dialogues in a world where nothing stays the same” (Greene, 1995, p. 16). Great men and women before and after Shakespeare challenged the order of the society with their work and creations, emphasizing that a process of thinking must be dynamic and ongoing. Arendt (1958) goes one step further and remarks in detail that with “word and deed we insert ourselves into the human [existence]” (p. 157) and this insertion, she further argues, permits us to act, to begin, to lead, to take initiative, to set something in motion. The simple question “Who are you?” is implicit in both words and deeds, yet the affinity between them provides the very foundation of my query as I move forward on this doctoral journey.

Being imaginative allows the educator and learner to be flexible in mind, and present and learn a subject in a new and engaging way, one that “enables students to understand [the subject] better and also take pleasure from the learning” (Egan, 1992, p.1). Imagination is about engaging, stimulating, and developing one’s thinking. Egan further notes that imagination “lies at a kind of crux where perception, memory, idea generation, emotion, metaphor, and no doubt other labeled features of our lives intersect and interact” (p. 3). The ideas to which I have been exposed and that I have explored in my artifacts reveal the great potential power of our writing to engage effectively in deeper learning, which requires not only our cognitive attention but also our ability to understand who we are. Cole & Knowles (2001) argue that research stems from a deep professional and personal commitment, and when “such a commitment is present the resulting scholarship will display a certain authority, with an obvious authenticity, and is likely to have moral, social, intellectual, and political roots…” (p.45). By adhering to this principle, I shall certainly tap into my own experiences that the power of my narrative captures.

I recall my 12-year-old son, Aron, asking about my studies, while I was driving him to a soccer game one Sunday morning. He asked me, “Papa, why are you doing a Ph.D.?” Before I could answer, he continued, “What are you researching about?” and “What does ‘Ph.D.’ mean?” The ancient Greeks assigned muses for poetry, music, and tragedy, but they did not mention a muse for this kind of situation. All of a sudden, I had a fan, lurking in my car, interested in my research. I knew that my son was not interested in pragmatic answers, such as “The doctoral degree is a passport to a world of research and new knowledge, financial prosperity, high social standing”, etc. What he really wanted to know was: What am I doing? Certainly, there are many ways and opportunities to drive research (and cars), but I would not claim that my answer satisfied my son`s absolute interest. When I told him that I am interested in knowing what is lost and what is gained in our contemporary education, he looked perplexed. He asked, “Why?” again. And at that moment, semiotically speaking, my attempt to explain my research to my son became a supreme philosophical discourse around what he knows and experiences about his own schooling—learning, that is—and what I perceive is taking place in classrooms. Consideration of such questions are central to the doctoral research, I believe, so the context was perfect, and I wish the journey to the soccer field had been longer, although my son did not give me “academic” feedback; his thoughts were interesting and engaging as he provided a rich and varied narrative. And he listened to me, too.

During his later performance on the field, highlighted by numerous goal assists and proper touch line throw-ins, I indulged in the comfort of a blanket and clung to my glorious thinking, reflecting on and further evaluating the focus and purpose of my research and why it is important to me. Throughout the game I had Don Quixote`s chivalric ideal in my mind (Cervantes & Ormsby, 2009). This character was unable to understand how the falsity of his ideal made him look foolish and out-of-date. Don Quixote does not break the rule that we wish destroyed, yet his performance “acts as a form of social criticism” (Sebeok, Erickson, Eco, Ivanov, & Rector, 1984, p. 8). Key to this ironic unfolding is Quixote`s nostalgic sense of morality in that it reveals that he never really understood the essential nature of chivalric code; he idealizes because he sought fame and recognition rather than service to chivalric morality itself.

The form of discourse that is social criticism—or as Fay (1987) frames it, critical social science—is a medium “by which many people today express their most profound longings” (p. 2).  My doctoral journey is connected to a profound sense of longing to make sense of the world in which we live and to understand how, as educators, we can strive to make it a better, socially-just place. Fay further argues that understanding critical social science is a way of “understanding an important part of the world of thought and action in which we live” (p.2). I have begun to come to grips with this Cervantesian vision in my Portfolio, and certainly plan to explore it further in my doctoral dissertation. My early-morning encounter with my son clarified my ontological commitment, in that I do not want my synthesis based on faulty understandings. Don Quixote did not see the world for what it was, preferring instead to imagine that he was living out a knightly story. In the meantime, my son was preoccupied with worldly actions, such as passing the ball forward, dribbling with his feet, and scoring goals. Both experiences—my Don Quixote reflection and my son`s soccer ability played out on the field—appeared to be in a coherent relationship with each other; the former accounted for the (perceived) knowledge of the world, and the latter the physical world itself. The inherent responsiveness to my early Sunday morning empirical experience provides an important element: I wish to theorize. I wish to positively identify critical energies that can be tapped as forces to use to challenge and perhaps overthrow the existing order. In Marcuse`s “one dimensional society”, genuine resistance is all but given up and with it the belief in the viability of the Frankfurt School critical theory (Fay, 1987). This abandonment provides one of the reasons why I have chosen to unearth salient social, metaphysical, political, and pedagogical assumptions in order to place them into what Greene (1995) calls a vision of human life and human possibility.

My Portfolio’s objective is to provide an explanatory critical framework, as I am also interested in the practical problems of social life such as how meanings are constructed. How do educators develop the particular capacity to think critically?  We live in an open, sensitive, ever-transforming world, with a constant need for instant gratification; therefore, it is crucial that we as researchers try to understand the structures, mechanisms, forces and powers that underpin and determine these social phenomena. I know one thing for certain: If I expect to understand the process that leads to emancipatory science and social transformation—change is not enough—I cannot be indifferent to these issues. From this comes my desire to theorize in order to create explanations that impose conceptual order on reality, however “manufactured” this order might later turn out to be. To study educational problems has the potential to influence the broader field of critical discourse. Since life is marked by continual strain, which according to Fay (1987) “shows itself in the relentless tension in human life between illumination and activity on one hand, and concealment and dependency on the other” (p. 215), I therefore need to see clearly in my pursuit.

I titled my Portfolio Imagination, Breakthroughs and the Unexpected because my work in my artefacts concerns the ways in which I might come to use imagination—the gateway--to search for openings in the field of social science without my pathway to lead into a cul-de-sac. Both Dewey (1929) and Arendt (1958) knew that imagining is the first step toward acting on the belief that things can be changed. The breakthrough analogy calls upon what Dewey (1929, 1934) believes to be the” quest for certainty” and the “conscious adjustment” with which my doctoral studies course work has provided me. Arendt`s (1961) writes that “it is the nature of beginning that something new has started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before. This character of startling unexpectedness is inherent in all beginnings” (p. 169). Greene (1995) argues that when we “assault” the real and authentic new always happens. When “we are putting pen to paper”, we are unpacking things as we move forward; we situate ourselves into our writing. When we let our voice be heard in our own writing, we also “construct [our own] subjectivity in ways that are historically and locally specific” (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2000, p. 961). These authors further point out that we also “understand ourselves reflexively as persons” and “it frees us from trying to write a single text in which everything is said at once to everyone” (p. 962). Working from this premise, by being exposed to multiple discourses and allowing myself to shift back and forth like a tectonic plate and grow like a crystal (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2000)—because there is always more to know—it is in the Portfolio where I deepen my knowledge.

My cautionary question at the beginning of my narrative, “Who are you?” strikes a similar cord with Arendt`s (1952) “And who are we?” (p. 12). Arendt recaptured my imagination:

the conditions of human existence—life itself, natality and mortality, worldliness, plurality, and the earth—can never ‘explain’ what we are or answer the question of who we are for the simple reason that they never condition us absolutely. But today we may almost say that…we are not mere earth-bound creatures. Modern science owes its great triumph to having looked upon and treated earth bound nature from a truly universal viewpoint, that is outside the earth. (p. 13)

In my view, this is a metaphor for in-depth analysis: to look at earth-bound creatures from outside the earth. Asking these types of critical questions are an inherent component of the doctoral journey. Arendt`s position and peculiar explanation with respect to our question “Who are we?” enables me to build the context in my Portfolio and hopefully open the way to present my problem and my research as “something that is more, rather than less, complex” (Schram, 2003, p. 47) and bring forth a key element in my approach: “to research is to reveal” (Cole & Knowles, 2001, p. 45). As I move forward, I am hoping to claim more authority over my material in the future, and make my writing more inclusive of other voices.

References

Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Britzman, D.P. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach.

Albany: State University of New York Press.

Cervantes S.M., & Ormsby, J. [Trans.]. (2009). Don Quixote. Waiheke Island, NZ:

Floating Press.

Cole, A., & Knowles, J.G. (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history research.

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Dewey, J. (1996). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of

education.  New York: Free Press.

Dewey, J. (1929). The quest for certainty. London, UK: Allen & Unwin.

Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning: The middle school years.

London, ON: Althouse Press.

Fay, B. (1987). Critical social science: Liberation and its limits. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.

Giroux, H.A. (2014). Neoliberalism`s war on higher education. Toronto, ON: Between

the Lines

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social

change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F.M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional

and systematic techniques. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Kettley, N. (2010). Theory building in educational research. New York: Continuum.

Knight, G. (2008). Issues and alternatives in educational philosophy (4th ed.). Berrien

Springs, MI: Andrews University Press.

Producers, P. Jackson, B. M. Osborne, F. Walsh, T. Sanders & Director, P. Jackson, (2001).

The fellowship of the ring [Motion picture]. New Zealand, United States: New Line

Cinema.

Sartre, J.P. (1957). Existentialism and human emotions. New York: Philosophical Library.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E.A. (2000). Writing. A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin &

Y.S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 959-978). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Schram, T. (2003). Constructing a conceptual context. In Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry:

Mindwork for fieldwork in education and the social sciences (p. 41).Upper Saddle River,

NJ/Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Tolkien, J.R.R. (1999). The fellowship of the ring: Being the first part of The Lord of the

Rings. London, UK: HarperCollins.