Confessions of a closet CA...

Dr. Huth

I just want to quickly mention that I did enjoy Dr. Huth.  He started off rather slow, but once he picked up, I found what he was saying interesting but at the same time confusing.  Essentially, he is crossing both DA and CA and saying they can be interdependent?  That one informs the other?  That is what I got at the end when he split the room—but it seems as if you can’t, or else they wouldn’t be separate in the first place, right?  Or is it akin to ‘ethnographic case study’ where you are using parts of each methodology and blending them to make a new one?  While I was glad to hear a linguist’s approach—I still had questions.

 

DA

Although my submissions of assignments would say otherwise, I am very interested in DA.  As a teacher of teachers, DA makes sense as a research methodology.  Word choice, next-turn-proof, and Jeffersonian transcription can be extremely informative if the researcher wants to know what is happening in a classroom setting.  If I want to find out if I am giving effective feedback to my interns as their supervisor and mentor, I could use DA to analyze video or audio recorded and transcribed conversations. 

I have found myself analyzing text conversations(using CA) with a friend who is neither in graduate school nor a teacher, and I have seen the reasons why we do not talk as much—we are completely misunderstanding one another.  I start a conversation, she will respond, but her response is not my ‘expected’ or ‘preferred’ response.  Sounds crazy, maybe, but now I have actual proof that there is miscommunication based on what I’ve learned from CA and DA.  Sacks may be a unicorn, but I’m glad I’ve gotten to see him.

ATLAS.ti

This is my third course using ATLAS.ti.  I must admit, I was totally prepared to be an expert on ATLAS, and use it to its fullest potential (or to the fullest of my knowledge, anyway).  This did not go as expected.  ATLAS is not difficult for me, please do not misunderstand.  The practice I had in advanced qual and especially in digital tools was extremely beneficial, and although I do not consider myself someone to have ‘insider knowledge’, I believe that I am proficient with this CAQDAS program.  However, other outside forces converged at the same time as this course.  Composing and defending comps, having 8 interns in the field for a nine week period in 4 different districts in grades K-12, plus one formal observation for each, my own kids’ daily school activities and  projects (we had two ‘biggies’ this semester—a book project and an imagined animal project), and ENG 456 (Dr. Keene’s writing for publication), my scholarship suffered greatly by my choice of priority arrangement.  I recognize that, and I own that, but that doesn’t make it easier at the end of the day.  I like ATLAS.  I would like to continue to use ATLAS.  I am also interested in inVivo, but I can save that for later (maybe).   The only ‘problem’ I have encountered with ATLAS, really, is my lack of data.  I have never worked on a large-scale project.  This semester is the most data I have ever worked with in ATLAS, and I do not feel overwhelmed by the actual functions of using it-- my inequities lie within the process of analyzing.  I’ve never done any research requiring this type of data analysis.  I have never coded anything deeper than transcribing and invivo.  I am unsure of what I am doing, and there are texts out there for that, but I have to practice it in order to feel at least somewhat competent with it.  You have to start somewhere, and this is a starting point for me.  This will be the most analyzing of data I have done.

The course

I have felt this course (and the other three I have taken from you) have been safe, comfortable, and they have made my brain hurt.  All of these things (in my mind) are beneficial. Working with my peers has been beneficial (our data groups) and I am excited to see other people’s work/interest/research.   I have a clearer picture of qualitative research—it  is not nearly as ‘mysterious’ as I thought it would be while I was learning about paradigms in 640 (theoretical framework/theory construction).  I am thinking more critically, I am questioning sources, I am seeing the choice of certain methodologies over others depending on the research question, the setting, and the participants. 

Because of this course in particular, I have been paying attention to my own word choices in conversation (and others’), and I believe that I have been a better mentor to my interns when we have reflections on a lesson and teaching.  My eyes are just beginning to see the possibilities out there for further research and I am formulating ideas of where I want to go.

Future Use

I have been thinking heavily about DART.  The idea of going over data and analyzing work and working with a group on DA sounds wonderful.  However, I am reluctant for a few reasons.  First, I know that I have made a poor showing this semester, which may make others reluctant to have me, thinking I lack the capacity to give meaningful feedback or contribution.  Secondly, although I would like to use DA, or even possibly CA in the future, I will not use it in my dissertation. Finally, I do not want to commit to something when I feel that I consistently overstretch my obligations and something suffers.  I may just be too busy. 

Thank you for everything you have done.  I have an immense amount of respect for you as a researcher and a teacher.  Your courses have been the most challenging, enjoyable and mind-bending in my course of study. 

To blog, or not to blog? That is the question ;)

Although I did not take DP, the method section of Lester & Paulus (2011) is something that I may refer to when analyzing my own data—I am going to get the references and look up the articles/books used in this section so I can model this type of method of coding.  I was initially planning to look at interesting things on my first go-round, but then I wasn’t quite sure where to go.  Gee’s tools are helpful, and I may somehow incorporate a couple of those, but I also need a research question—somehow I want to include a critical analysis, possibly CDA (?) as a method, but I need to look more into that.  My text document that I am analyzing along with my video data is raced and classed to the dominant culture.  My student is a non-native speaker, and the inherent bias in the assessment affects her outcome.  Somehow I need to frame that—and I’m still working on it, hence the reason I am grateful for the group activities.

So, in regards to the readings—I was wondering about blogs.  In this class (and many others) we blog.  In two of the courses I took, it was required to respond to other posts, and we also had a ‘blog group’ or partner.  Although I am not sure if I used the “I don’t know” to distance myself—I am wondering about blogs that are ‘available’ for the class to view, but not required to have a response.  In both of the articles, the blogs themselves must be viewed and have a response by the students in the class, which seems to make them take up the assignment differently than if the blogs were private.  In this course, we have access to everyone’s post, but we are not required to read them.  Our blogs are on a public forum (at least mine is) which means they are accessible to anyone if they know the url.  With that being said, I wonder if there is any difference between the blogs in this course (or a different course that was the same 600 level with less students) and the undergraduate blogs.  At this point in my academic career, I welcome any and all feedback, and I do not concern myself with the public or private state of my post.  If people read and comment, great.  If it is to the instructor only, fine.  Are undergraduate students the same in their thought process?  Are they ‘comfortable’ with their own writing so it is not a ‘delicate’ thing?   Maybe for future reference you can examine the posts of your graduate students using the same question and method—wow.  That was very quantitative and positivist of me, wasn’t it? Trying to replicate a study?  Yikes.  Regardless, I kept thinking about how my peers and I discuss blogging amongst ourselves, and I wonder if you would find similarities.

Can opposite leading scholars mix?

During the first read of Gee, I thought, “Ugh! This is not at all what I expected—especially when I read the entire grammar section.”  However, I did like the idea of the “tools”, because those can be applicable.  Overall, I see this book as a resource, but now I have a question when it comes to analysis.  I know that in advanced qual we discussed who we may align ourselves with when it comes to research and analysis.  At this point, to be plain, I just like Hutchby and Wooffitt better.  Jeffersonian transcription is something that I picked up easily, and it makes total sense to me.  The analysis of the conversations in Hutchby and Wooffitt were also clear, as I would ‘test’ myself while reading the conversations.  I would skip the written text and analyze the examples, then read to see if my analysis was correct.  More often than not, it was, and I was on the same page with them.  Gee, however, threw me off, especially with his linguistic approach in the first half of the book.  I can’t say whether or not that small section then biased me towards the rest, because I did find things useful.  Tool #21, the Sign Systems and Knowledge Building Tool, fits perfectly with the data I’m looking at for this course. Thank you, for finding that for me before I did J.  So, to get back to my question.  When I am analyzing data, does it make sense to rely on completely different leading scholars in the field?  I plan on using many of Hutchby and Wooffitt’s theories and arguments to assist in my analysis, however, some of the tools Gee lists are useful, and I would also like to use them, but does it diminish my analysis if I use both?  I suppose since I am new to working with data and analysis, especially DA or CA, that the more practice the better.  I tried to look at Gee’s references, but, alas, the unicorn has none.  He does, however, give readings at the end of each section, and I see he cited Fairclough, but he also does not refrain from offering his previous publications.

Other peoples' proposals (OPP)--I'm down with it :)

I would like to thank Joshua and Elizabeth for sharing their work and coming in.  I am so glad to see these proposals and hear about their research.  Thanks for having them.

 

After reading Elizabeth’s proposal, I am wondering why she chose to take ENG 462 J.  Her proposal is clearly written.  It flows well, her knowledge and voice come through her piece without overpowering it—she is a fabulous writer.  That is not the question I wanted to ask her, of course.  What I was wondering were two things:  1) How was she able to gain access to such (usually guarded and private) IEP meetings? (I was a teacher, too, and I can only imagine how difficult it is to gain access to that type of setting) and 2) During her meetings, did she find many students misplaced under Special Education programs, especially students of color or non-native speakers and low SES students?  I have seen many students in my classroom that had IEPs that honestly did not need them (I taught in high school), but they had an IEP since elementary school, and just as her literature stated, it was almost as if that ‘stuck’ to them—a stigma forever attached.  If she found that, maybe that could be another avenue for research. 

 

Joshua’s proposal sparks and interest with me, in fact, we are almost looking at the same idea—I think I may use some of his references when I start writing my prospectus…I love this idea, and I have been toying with using DA as a methodology in my dissertation.  What I am looking at (for now—this may change slightly) is how pre-service ESL teachers’ perceptions impact their teaching.  Unfortunately, I have not been able to find much on pre-service ESL teachers beliefs in the United States.  There are many studies of pre-service EFL teachers in other countries, but what I found while working on my comps is that the ability to speak English is viewed differently in other countries than in the U.S.  Here, Americans ‘expect’ non-native speakers to learn and speak English very quickly and almost assimilate themselves to the culture.  In other countries, learning English can allow for better jobs and mobility.  Students are not asked to abandon their native language, but use English to enrich their lives within that space.  I am still trying to explain it, but the phrase “English Speaker” means two different things depending on the context.

As far as what I’ve been working on with ATLAS.ti, I have not been having the ease that I expected.  I have been trying to get my anchors to show in my transcript for two days now, to no avail—I am still working on it, and if I can’t get the anchors in, I will submit my one transcript that is attached to my one video today in dropbox, but I am very glad now that Ann was able to come to class, because I am not sure if I would have been much help to the class.  I am still trying, and I am not letting it discourage me.  We’re all learners here, and now is the time to take risks.

Warning--overload in progress

I have only been able to digest chapter 4 so far.  Maybe my brain is on overload due to comps being due Friday (I’m guessing that is it).  Regardless—I have post-it notes on nearly every page, which means I have many questions. 

 

First of all, when we discussed the idea that CA researchers do not consider themselves qualitative, now I see why.  In the opening pages, Schegloff’s (1968) study discusses phone calls and how each phone call can be ‘unique’, but the general turn-taking or sequence of the conversation (in this case 500 of them) can be generalized.  The most interesting part of this particular study discussed was the one ‘deviant case’ (p. 91) in which the caller is the first to speak.  Schegloff then went through the entire research over again in order to reformulate his analysis based on one call-, and then instead of ‘answerer speaks first’ (which actually makes sense), he then has an “adjacency pair called summons-answer sequences” (p. 91). I believe I understand this, because when a phone rings and the answerer says “Hello”, it’s not necessarily a greeting, it is acknowledging you’ve picked up—greetings come AFTER one says “Hello”, or some other utterance, such as a first name, or “this is so and so”, and then starts the conversation. If a doorbell rings, a person may go and open the door, but he or she may not speak first—but they answered the door, which would make this the same idea as the ‘deviant case’ on the telephone (because the officer didn’t seem to be sure if the Red Cross rep picked up the phone).   So, I understand why Shegloff did this, as this makes even more sense, but I am wondering if that is what another CA researcher would do after finding one anomaly (or ‘deviant case’).  Is that akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater?  I mean, what if that ‘deviant case’ would not have happened?  Although it is fortunate that this one phone call out of 500 was discovered—what does that mean for CA?  Will you ever have enough data?  When is it okay to stop collecting and analyzing?  I read the main point was to “maximize the generalizability of analytic accounts” (p. 92), but just prior to that line, Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) do say that they used the Shegloff (1968) study as an example because of its clear cut nature.  I feel confused.

            I did understand the Drew (1987) ‘po-faced’ response section, but I was wondering where that name came up—there’s not an explanation that I could find—I was just wondering. My favorite example was the two women talking about a date and the cigarette—I was actually impressed with myself that I correctly interpreted that conversation as I was reading it prior to reading the authors’ discussion (I have a tendency to jump to the conversations themselves in this book first, then read about them after I read them—I’m trying to work on my interpretation skills and learn Jeffersonian.  I am trying to ‘hear’ the conversation as I read it—and I am drawn to it—the transcripts come to life with this type of transcription, but that is what it was for, right?

            The last thing I wanted to discuss was the “three stage model” on p. 104.  To me, this read very ‘non qualitative’ if that makes any sense—but if you’re looking for a phenomenon (that’s one, right? Phenomena are multiple) then you are not part of the research, and you’ve stated that CA people do not consider themselves qualitative researchers.  Now I can see that.  However, if CA also looks at social patterns or finds how turn-by-turn conversation is found within social patterns, it is qualitative.  Ugh.  I still like the book, and I am still very interested in CA, but now I feel as if I am getting tangled up in the basic premises of CA and I am having difficulty making my way through.

Finally--I get to actually do something with data!

I am really excited to revisit my previously collected data.  At first, I was concerned about what type of data I was going to use, and my head was spinning on a hamster wheel.  Thanks, Journey, for discussing our 529 pieces.  I am anxious to see how the analyzing process goes with this type of data.  This is a round of firsts—the first time I will be looking at video data, the first time I will be transcribing in ATLAS.ti, the first time I will be analyzing data thoroughly.  Yaay! It’s about time.  I have been learning about how to do all of these things, and I am very glad that I get to have a trial run prior to doing this for a pilot study and for my dissertation work. This is exciting J

            I know how we discussed Rapley (2008) as a cookbook of sorts, but for someone who is new to qualitative research as a whole and just learning about DA, I am appreciative of his clarity and accessibility of the topic. I am interested in the readings and I like what I know about DA so far.  I am a bit sad—this is something I’d like to take up sooner rather than later—like in my dissertation, but I am not sure if I could do it justice. Here is what I like about it—it allows us to actually ‘see’ what we’re saying.  Our intentions come out through our talk (Rapley, 2008) and we can truly understand the situation.  This can be helpful in education—how we educate pre-service teachers, how mentors and pre-service teachers interact, how teachers and students interact (I know Journey is a Reading Recovery specialist, and how they interact with their students is discussed in great detail, following along the principles founded by Marie Clay)—DA is really cool.  I am not just saying that because I am in this course—I love words, I love how they are shape-shifters and world-changers on a micro or macro level.  Someday I am going to write a piece using DA as a methodology—I just don’t know when.  I am still trying to determine the difference between conversation analysis and discourse analysis…

            FYI—“chuckleable” is going to be my new word for Thursdays J Gotta love Sacks.

 

In chapter 8 Rapley (2008) discusses the idea that conversation analysis can say that context matters (use of social knowledge) or that contextualization doesn’t matter because one should only look at the words actually spoken After reading the accounts of the women’s focus groups on date rapes (or saying no) and the doctor/patient interactions—I am not sure what to think.  I think I believe that who we are determines how we talk to people—I am thinking how teachers will talk to parents, or how doctors may talk to patients (I have had personal encounters with both types of doctors portrayed), so, who is it that allows the ‘social inequality’ to remain?  The people speaking or the society that constructs it?  I am not sure if that is clear—I may have to revisit that again prior to class tomorrow.  I will think on it in order to be more clear…I have a thought, but I can’t verbalize it this second.  All that I know is that I want to know more.

Oops! I mixed up the readings, but I love the Rapley (2008) text!

            So, I realize now that I read the Hutchby and Wooffitt text a week ahead, and did not read last week’s reading.  Therefore, I worked backwards, and I am very glad that this book (Rapley, 2008) is in the syllabus.

I see similarities between this book and Paulus, Lester, Dempster (2013) with clarity of voice, organization, and key concepts.  I appreciate this book.  I am slightly disappointed that I did not purchase it, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t at a later date.  Once I realized that it was free through the library, I didn’t give it a glance until it was required. I believe it is concise, accessible, and I can easily identify with the author and his presentation of how to conduct and transcribe this type of research (as discussed in chapters 1-5).

 I didn’t know that I could use newspapers, magazines, etc. for data. Really, there is no excuse—I didn’t make the connection when we looked at the MIT “annual brain research conference” flyer in our first class meeting.  With this said, I may be changing my data. I am debating on analyzing blog posts from my students—but I am not certain that I can do that, as it isn’t a conversation.  I am very interested in conversation, and I do realize that getting ‘participants’ (I don’t have an IRB approved, so this is strictly for this class, but I would like it to be somewhat useful) is difficult. I am still figuring out what kind of conversation I can become a part of and also record without being to invasive.  Also, Rapley (2008) discusses the idea of using research articles.  I realize these can inform your research (they help you situate yourself in the field, give current discussions about what is happening in the field of that research, etc.) but I never thought about analyzing them.   I am thinking of looking at the teacher education materials on our CEHHS website for fun (if I can use that, or even get around to it for my own learning).

For anyone wishing to write an IRB—read chapter three thoroughly.  This gives advice, examples of permission, and you can outline an IRB from this chapter.  I will revisit this after my comps are turned in as I have an IRB that is a work in progress, and the sooner I complete it, the better.

On a sidenote—if I were going to analyze the resources at the end of each chapter, I would note that each reference given for further reading is a Sage publication.  Did he do that because he had to? Does he feel that these are the most helpful resources? Does he work with the authors given?  This book is a Sage publication, of course they would want to self-promote, right?

I like how he tells us to write down (researcher notes) on the recruitment process.  This is something I need to do as well.  He makes a valid point that I failed to see until I read this in chapter 4.  Who participates helps shapes your data which in turn, shapes your analysis of the data.  How those participants came to be is important for transparency of your work as well as the analysis of your data. 

The author makes it seem as if videotaping is cumbersome.  The book came out in 2008, and advancements in technology may have made videoing easier.  I agree that it is still intrusive and people may act for the camera.  I have not videotaped anything for transcription or research purposes, but I have taken video on my phone, and my camera has a video function, and I haven’t encountered an issue.  However, if something will go wrong, I am sure I can count on things going wrong when I am attempting to collect data.

Although I troubled Hutchby and Wooffitt (2008) about Sacks being a deity, here is one reason why I do like the guy—“The tape-recorded materials offered a ‘good enough’ record of what happened.  Other things, to be sure, happened, but at least what happened on tape had happened” (Sacks, 1984, as in Rapley, 2008, p.49).  I situate myself in a constructivist/critical paradigm, and I sometimes take a post-positivist view (especially with recorded conversations—like Sacks said, that happened, therefore it is ‘true’ (small ‘t’)), but when I read Denzin and Lincoln regarding what is reality, it seems too radical for my views.  I have difficulty accepting that everything is determined by individuals and nothing can be really true—the message I have understood by those two researchers.  Things happen.  We may all see them slightly differently, we may all have our own perceptions of what happened, but I believe that there can be a thread of realism in what occurs, as long as we acknowledge our own and other’s points of view.  Words are spoken.  They are on tape.  That happened.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  This is one reason why I am liking this subject (DA) more and more.

I absolutely love the Poland (2002) example on pages 57-58.  Why?  It gave me affirmation that the little transcription that I’ve done is akin to what has been discussed in a scholarly publication.  I am on the right track.  I understand it.  I also like that “Transcripts are living, evolving, documents—they are always susceptible to change and alterations” (Rapley, 2008, p. 58).  Somewhere along the line, I got the notion that once the audio was transcribed, you couldn’t change it.  I cannot pinpoint the origin of that thought, but it is welcome knowledge to read that sentence.

In the discussion regarding Jeffersonian transcription— I love his honesty.  I, too, will have to take the same approach (having the symbols laying next to me as I type, listening over and over, then reading aloud my own rendition) and that he says that it can be frustrating and extremely time consuming, but it gets better over time and practice (as does everything).

I have rambled long enough, but I am so very glad we have this book!

OH! One more thing--in my last post I discussed what we could maybe "all agree upon" as a definition of a mother.  I was wrong.  What about surrogate parents? Foster parents? Those mothers did not bear a child, but they are their primary caregiver.  Again, this is why I am troubling the issue of "membership categories".