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".

 

 

Sacks must have been the wizard who invented unicorns--just sayin'...

“There is no other way  that conversation is being studied systematically except my way” (Sacks, 1992, Vol. 2: 549 as in Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008, p. 3).

            I have yet to read a textbook that gives such reverence to its subject creator (I am not sure how else I wanted to say that).  Although I am still digesting the ideas postulated in Hutchby and Wooffitt (2009), I am completely amazed at how highly Sacks is portrayed.  This is just an observation, but Sacks must have been a unicorn, or the mythical wizard that created them.  I am not taking anything away from the man, he obviously has introduced an entirely unique methodology into qualitative research, and he does deserve respect, but he is almost deified by the authors. 

            Regardless of the iconic portrayal of Sacks, I am intrigued by what I am reading thus far, and this text is not what I expected.  We were told that students either love Hutchby and Wooffitt (2009) or hate it, and, to my own surprise, I am in favor of it thus far.  I am intrigued by the examples given in the texts, and the illustrations of turn-by-turn conversations, adjacency-pairs, and preferences, the organization of turn-taking (all discussed in chapter 2).  These portrayals of conversation and their analysis are clear to me.  However, I am also still trying to clarify my own understanding of what ‘context’ means in this text. 

            Chapter 1 discusses three criticisms of ethnography (a methodology of interest to me).  The first criticism is that ethnographers use “insiders” in order to gain information instead of the activities.  I have read and reread that, and I still cannot make sense of that.  Ethnography studies the context and the people within that space—along with their actions (field observations), and often times the researcher is the participant.  The second criticism is that ethnography depends on the “…commonsense knowledge on the members of society as a resource… not as a topic of study” (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2009, p. 23) So does that mean that ethnography should be looking deeper into what that group of people deems as common knowledge and only focus on that?  Then it would not be ethnography, right?  Again, I am just thinking aloud and trying to think these ideas through.  Finally (and this is the last criticism that I found the most difficult to grasp) is this:  Sacks wanted his research to be replicable—so that the person could have the exact words spoken and reanalyze the conversation in order to find the same results.  This is difficult to digest.  Why does that matter?  The idea of qualitative research is not about replication—however, maybe he (Sacks) felt by exploring conversation (naturally occurring, exactly transcribed) in this manner, that it would be more valid--he even said that it was "...more concrete than the Chicago stuff tended to be" (Sacks, 1992, Vol 1:27 as in Hutchby and Wooffitt, 2009, p. 23).  Here is my view (critical as it is—and context matters here).  In our first text, we read that people construct meaning together.  Also, that collective meaning is socially constructed, and therefore contextual.  So, although I read the examples and the turn-by-turn analysis in the later chapters, and it made absolute sense, it is because someone told me what it meant.  I do not know for sure if I read those conversations without the analysis that I would come to the same conclusions as the authors, so is CA replicable?  If it is, why does it have to be?  Is it supposed to be? That is the impression that I got when reading this section.

            Also, what about “membership categories”?  Would not this term be akin to positionality or intersectionality as I learned about in Critical Race Theory?  When you assume someone’s membership category as a wife and a mother, those categories do not have the same meaning for all of us, but as I was reading, it seems that Sacks assumes that there was an agreed upon social meaning of those terms.  In which society?  Female has more than one connotation or social meaning in different cultures, one example that comes to mind is within Muslim, Christianity, and Wiccan practices—so, whose social construct are we relying on here?  The dominant culture?  In no way am I trying to cause trouble—I am only trying to understand what I am reading.  I do accept the idea of a socially universal term in most cases—a mother is a person who has borne a child.  That, I believe is something on which everyone can agree.  However, within the conversation on page 37 with the boy talking about a “chick” he was hanging around with, the analysis assumes that a ‘chick’ implies a ‘cool’ or ‘hip’ person.  On a personal level, I can see that, because I am white and that is my definition of ‘chick’.  When slang terms are brought into the conversation, assumptions may not be that easy, as like language itself,  colloquial terms are fluid, and I feel even more so, especially with the advancement of technology.  New words such as “googleable” , “facebooking”, “trolling”, or “trolls”, “lurking”—they are either entirely new to the lexicon, or some words are reinvented.  This is something that is not addressed.  What does a conversation analyist do with that?  Would not context matter? 

            Again, I do like what I am reading, and I love the idea of CA—I am having difficulty making sense of it, because it seems contradictory—the words matter, but we assume there are social assumptions being made that may not be true for all groups.

Post 1

            At this moment I am unsure as to what type of data I am going to collect.  Ideally, I would like what I collect to be useful to me in the future, but since I am still working on my IRB for my pilot study, I cannot use what I find.  Although I would like to use video, I am not sure how I can collect this type of evidence without being further intrusive. Audio is less noticeable than a camera set up, but both items create a feeling of ‘being watched’ and participants may feel they must monitor their behavior or ‘say the right thing’ because the conversation is being recorded. I realize that as researchers we have our own biases and influence the data collected, especially in a conversational situation. It is important to address these issues in the findings.  

            I have a few thoughts on the types of conversations I would like to record and the places I would like to go, but none of them are solidified at this point.  I would like to record a conversation with my interns, maybe an overall discussion about what is happening with them right now in their current placements. I would like to know their feelings, their experiences, highs and lows they may have encountered, things of that nature.  That would be extremely difficult to transcript, but I could use the practice.  I have yet to transcribe multiple speakers.  If that is not able to occur, I would be able to record a session between myself and my ‘writing coach’ in my ENG 462 class, which would not be personally beneficial for future use in my own research process, but it would be interesting to dissect.  I also thought about recording a part of my teacher evaluator training that I will attend on Friday, because the dynamics of these training sessions are fluid yet tight at the same time, due to the nature of the material. 

            As far as my mini-lit review, I will be gathering articles that relate to Discourse Analysis (DA) and  English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching.  I have one article that I stumbled across two years ago that uses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and an ESL college student, and when I first encountered it, I liked what I saw about CDA and wanted to learn more. I held onto it because it struck a chord with me. I have the opportunity to find more about it.  Although I am drawn to the ‘critical’ side of discourse analysis, I do not believe I will limit my search to only CDA.  I am drawn to CDA in part because of a previous course I took which was Critical Race Theory (CRT).  That class was eye-opening and shifted my view of the world dramatically, especially based on my background of teaching low SES black students for a very long time, and now working with non-native speakers, many of whom are faced with prejudice and unfairness in our systems (schools, government offices) on a daily basis.  Had I not lived those prior experiences, I do not believe the course would have had the same impact. In the beginning of Rogers et al. (2005), the piece discusses what is critical about CDA, and the idea is that “…injustice and oppression shape the social world” (p.367).   That idea is present in CRT as well, and now that I have read a few CRT articles and CRT scholars’ works, I cannot help but to use that lense when I am in schools.  To me, that idea makes sense, but it is also extremely frustrating to see when I am hearing about standardized tests written in English for students who do not speak English, yet they are unable to receive any accommodations for said tests.  That is just one example.  I also feel as if I have experienced a certain ‘power struggle’ with my children’s school and their scripted reading program.  I would have liked to have recorded that conversation and had a CDA scholar examine and analyze that data. 

            The article for today, Critical Discourse Analysis in Education:

A Review of the Literature (Rogers et al. ,2005) is extensive, thorough, and dense.  You discussed in the first night of class that it is less difficult to trace the origins of DA in academia, and this group takes it one step further, finding the role of CDA in educational settings.  Not only does this group of authors discuss the origins of CDA, but they also give the methodology of how they filtered articles—what I found interesting is that out of 803 articles, the group found 40 that were worthy of the literature review.  That in itself seems to be a monumental task, but since there are multiple authors, they could divide the work.  Although you stated in class that Gee is not a primary DA author for you, they do use Gee’s tenents of CDA, and I am asking this—do all disciplines (is that even the right word) have tenents?  CRT has tenents as well, but is that due to the ‘critical’ in the discipline?  Is CDA a method, like case study and ethnograpy?  Ethnography, too, has tenents, but I do not believe they are addressed as such, as in they are not labled, “Tenents of Ethnography”.  The more I read, the more I am trying to piece things together.

Introduction, EDPY 631, Discourse Analysis Fall, 2013

Hello! My name is Hollie Nawrocki, and I am a third year doctoral candidate (early stage) in Theory and Practice in Teacher Education.  I have ‘officially’ finished my coursework, and I am currently working on my comprehensive exams, but I am enrolled in this course in order to earn my Qualitative Research Certificate. I am earning a Ph.D. in Literacy Studies with a concentration in English as a Second Language (ESL) Education.     

I have always had an interest in Discourse Analysis, although until a couple of years ago, I did not know the name of the field.   I love words.  I was a high school English teacher in Columbus, Ohio for ten years before coming back to school.  To me, words are chameleons creeping in a dense, meandering jungle, blasting their changes or subtly shifting nuances as they navigate spaces.  Take the simple word, ‘fine’.  It can mean multiple things, especially if you are a woman (I know that is gender-biased, but I accept that bias and acknowledge it as I am of the female persuasion).  If I look at my kids, and say, “Oh, that’s fine if you have a snack while doing your homework”, that shows the most used definition of the word, as in, ‘acceptable’, or, it is fine.  On the other hand, if I am upset with my husband and he is pleading his case, and I say, “Fine” (in a brusque, guttural tone), certainly it is not fine.  That one word can have so many subtle nuances, based on pronunciation, volume of the spoken word, and facial or body expression that accompany it.  That is just one word!  We have tens of thousands of words that can have that shift-shaping potential!  That is almost impossible to imagine, let alone research and write about.  Printed words are ambiguous compared to those spoken, and while reading printed material, I have ‘voices’ that read text to me in my mind, much like an audiobook.  My perception of those words written and the way I make meaning of those words may not be the same as anyone else’s.  Although the “intended” (for lack of a better term) themes may emerge for many people reading the same text, there will be subtle differences in how we process what we see, hear, and read.  This idea (along with many more) is discussed in Mercer, 2000.

I have said this before in other courses.  I appreciate Mercer’s book.  His approach is straightforward, his writing is clear, he provides multiple examples (transcribed interviews, conversations, etc.).  It is amazing what I take for granted after reading some of the provided examples, the collective meaning of the crossword puzzle solution in the beginning of the book, the insurance call in chapter 4 (how scripts are designed to persuade people), and the examination of the rape victim (how the lawyer tries to paint the picture of the woman who was almost soliciting a sexual encounter).  I will be honest—I have this book on borrowed download, and I have not fully completed it, but it is on its way, as I think this can help me in my own work as I am using many interviews to gather ‘experiences’ of participating in a particular teacher licensure program.  Examining what was said by my participants will be in my analysis, but those printed words will not carry the same meaning as the recording (whether it be video or audio), and those feelings will be difficult to capture and convey in my work.  Also, as I said earlier, my interpretation will be what is produced, so then when others read what I have interpreted it, they will interpret my work in a myriad of different ways.  As in EDPY 604; Mind=Blown.  I am excited for the course.

Final blog (for EDPY 604)

Reflections on Tuesday’s Class

Doug Canfield (IT) was a presenter for Scrivener and Prezi (although he used a Prezi to discuss Scrivener.  Personally, I was a bit nervous when he told us about his first dissertation disaster.  There is more to that story--I wonder what it is?  Did he not successfully defend?  Is this his second time?  Is that even possible?  I digress…it is just one thing that I will not ask.

Doug showed Scrivener.  I find it interesting that he uses 3 screens—I do have one in my office from my most recent office mate that (I believe) graduated this summer.  I plan to hook it up, but for my use with ATLAS.ti. I did not download Scrivener.  At this point, I am not ready for another tool.  Currently, there are too many tools that I have learned about that I like already, such as Nvivo, Inqscribe, and DragonSpeak.   I do not plan to write any of these tools off, but file them for later.  I do like what I see with Scrivener, though, and maybe as I get into drafting my actual dissertation, I may think about using it. He said something that resonates with me regarding Scrivener—it lets you have a brain dump, then go back and split it, organize it, and  create your argument.  If you're a non-linear thinker, you will love this... (I am non-linear for EVERYTHING).

I am surprised at how much Prezi has ‘evolved’ since I used it in the spring of 2012.  This is exactly the point made in this class about how quickly technology can change.  I may try to use it again for the spring course I teach.  It was actually much easier this second time (even though I was in a group, I could do this alone).  I went to OIT for help with my first Prezi.  They were fantastic there. 

What has the overall experience of this class been like for you?

In order to answer this question, I went back to my blog posts and pulled some of my favorite lines.  They are compiled below in blue:

In regards to the class thus far, this is one of the classes that has gotten me excited about my progression from comps, prospectus, and dissertation. Up to this point, any of those words would carry ominous dark clouds full of fear and fraught with anxiety.  Although I still worry about my immediate future, learning about technology is the silver lining that can possibly assist me in managing that fear and anxiety. That is a welcome feeling.  The first day was full of so much information (thank you for posting Dr. Wood’s slide presentation) and finally using a software package like ATLAS.ti made sense to me, as shown by Dr. Wood’s presentation.  Everything you’ve done is in there—by using this, we explain what we did and how we did it, which allows us to state our findings. Ginny’s presentation of Evernote was very exciting (as you saw in my first paragraph), but what I am enjoying is that we are given permission open the programs presented (ATLAS.ti, Evernote, etc.) and see for ourselves if we deem them useful.

As a side note, I would like to add that I have been taking notes and writing thoughts in Evernote during class since Ginny's presentation for my blogs--and I made a grocery list with it today.  I am liking that tool!

Thank you Ann (and Ginny), for such an interesting class on what Nvivo does (and the ease of seeing discussion groups and tweets). Now academic researchers are able to access tools that marketing companies have used for years.

One reflection on my first skillbuilder—I am glad that I did it, and it took much longer than I anticipated.  That is not a downside at all

I feel fortunate to have such knowledge and experience surrounding me in this course.  Without this exposure and a ‘safety net’ (I know that Dr. Paulus, Ann, and Ginny get emails with technical questions at all hours), I would be much more intimidated by these tools.  I do not feel intimidated at all, in fact, I am more excited about some of these tools than I initially thought I would be.  I believe it is because I am just beginning my own research process, and I see the benefit of these tools for my own use.

I would say that my overall experience was extremely positive.  I am so very glad I enrolled in this course.  It was extremely valuable and useful.

How was the experience of learning ATLAS.ti as a required part of this class?

Again, I talked quite a bit about ATLAS.ti in my blogs and used it as a skillbuilder.  Here are some of my experiences from my previous blog posts in purple:

…and finally using a software package like ATLAS.ti made sense to me, as shown by Dr. Wood’s presentation.  Everything you’ve done is in there—by using this, we explain what we did and how we did it, which allows us to state our findings.

Today, Monday July 15, I drafted an IRB for an interview study and I stated in my IRB that I was going to use ATLAS.ti for document management and analysis

…my next skillbuilder, which is going more in depth with ATLAS.ti.

Since I am planning to go deeper with Atlas for my second skillbuilder, I plan on using it for transcription.  I imported a voice file from my digital recorder prior to class on Thursday, and I had no trouble with the file.  It was an mp3 file, which Ann stated that that type of file was the easiest to import into Atlas.  I was also excited because before connecting my digital recorder to my laptop, I downloaded software for my digital recorder thinking I would have to convert the file, but not at all—I did not even have to use the software.  I do like the capabilities of both tools, but my intent is to work with Atlas and learn it.  I found the functions surprisingly user-friendly for a first encounter, and I am glad that I can keep the audio file along with the written transcription in one place.  I realize this can be done with Inqscribe, but I can also access other documents in ATLAS.ti, such as my highlighted and memoed articles to support my findings, my IRB, and my research notes/journal.

While we were working in ATLAS as a group, I was feeling excited and frustrated--wishing I had real data, but, I was still glad to have the opportunity to walk through coding in ATLAS.ti.  I realize that there are multiple ways to complete the same task (now) and I have a fairly positive outlook on using ATLAS.ti for the remainder of my program.  I was surprised at how comfortable I was with working with memos and coding, even with merging codes and creating families.  It seems as if I have learned more than I thought (and actually remembered it) from advanced qualitative methods last semester.  The reason that I say ‘fairly positive’ is because I plan on using ATLAS.ti from this point on in my studies, and, although I have not heard anything ‘negative’ (I am not sure if that is the word I want to use, but for now, I am not sure what word fits better) from my committee, especially my chair, I hope they will be on board and not become frustrated when I want to show work.  This is why the final project of this course is very important and beneficial to me, because it can be a working draft of what I will present in my comprehensive questions in order to provide my rationale for using this CAQDAS tool.

I am very glad we were able to work with video files in Atlas--so nice that it works the same as an audio (sort of).  Either way, I was able to pick it up.  Now I'm really starting to think about rewriting this IRB...

I really like these functions with visual data in atlas--much easier than I expected.  I know people have described atlas as 'clunky' or not 'intuitive', but actually, if you're familiar with atlas and its functions with documents, it's relatively easy to get--but I am always grateful for in class tutorials/support :) ATLAS IS ON YOUTUBE!  I need to remember that when I run into an issue (which I am certain will happen sooner or later)

Again, quite positive in regards to ATLAS.ti.  I’m going to become very familiar with this tool!

Lots to think about...

Reflections on Thursday

Nalani opened class with her demonstration of Dragon Dictate in Inqsribe --so far, Dragon looks cool, and I am interested in it, but I don't think I will do anything with it at this point.  I have so much information on so many things, and I need to keep things simple.  When we practiced using atlas for transcription, I found it very easy, and I do not mind listening, stopping, then typing.  I am not discounting the idea speak-to-text, because I love the idea of speaking rather than typing, but I may use the feature already installed on my Microsoft pc prior to spending any money.  I am undecided.  What I plan to do with this information is file it and keep it, but not act on it at this moment.  I did not know that while ‘training’ dragon, you uploaded a word doc with your own writing so it can become even more familiar with your speech patterns.  That is quite impressive, but it could be a limitation, because you’re training the software to you only, which doesn’t allow Dragon to do the majority of the work for you.  For example, you cannot let Dragon ‘hear’ your interview with another person.  You must listen and speak both parties’ words in order for Dragon to be more accurate.  Nalani also pointed out that she prefers to enter punctuation AFTER transcribing rather than giving commands, which, I believe, can add more work and time, but as a researcher, you will become even more intimate with your transcription and interviews.  The idea of speak-to-text (for me, at least) may be a wash when compared to the traditional ‘listen and type’ method of transcription.  Thank you, Nalani :)

I really enjoyed the activities.  I talk about my experiences with them below:

I don't get much "background noise" when I am interviewing since its usually in an empty classroom or an empty teacher workroom/lounge (that is hilarious in of itself, a “lounge”) but I do not believe that this year I will have that experience, so it is important as a researcher to think about the setting.  I plan on meeting in a public place, but this will influence my participants' responses, and even my body language and demeanor, simply because people act differently in different locations.  Maybe they will be more relaxed, maybe they will be more guarded, maybe I will be distracted by what is happening around them, or maybe they will be--there is no way to know, but the space you and your participant are in matters.  It will be important to discuss that when I am analyzing the data in my written work.

Also, while using Wordle, it was very apparent how this can be useful for visualizing data (Cidell, 2010).  I have seen ‘word clouds’ for years, but I can’t believe it took me this long to realize that those are useful in data analysis. In my defense, I had not been in a graduate program and I had never even collected or analyzed data, so I suppose I would not have seen this obvious use of word clouds. 

I have never been on Pintrest—our group had a very interesting discussion—Nalani  and I initially thought it was gender biased, for example, we searched "sports" and the first word on the search was not ‘sports’ that popped up, but ‘sports bra’.  Ann came by, and said that Pintrest is user-generated data, and more women use Pintrest than men, so maybe it's not Pintrest that is gender biased, but since  it is used mainly by women, then everything will be geared towards women.  Ann told us to do a search on "maniterest??"(I got the email from Dr. Paulus yesterday on the “man pintrest” comparable websites)  We did not get to do that, but we did ask Scott for a topic to search in Pintrest.  He said, "guns".What came up were purple and pink and zebra guns--along with "normal" guns--still for women--but mostly women are using pintrest...that is also another aspect to show in written findings—knowing how data is generated if you are using internet sites for data collection. 

While discussing the mobile app for ATLAS.ti, I am glad it was covered, but I am not an iPad owner (nor do I plan to be), but, the usage seems pretty 'easy'--and handy, I guess, especially if you are in the field.

I am very glad we were able to work with video files in Atlas--so nice that it works the same as an audio (sort of).  Either way, I was able to pick it up.  Now I'm really starting to think about rewriting this IRB...

I really like these functions with visual data in atlas--much easier than I expected.  I know people have described atlas as 'clunky' or not 'intuitive', but actually, if you're familiar with atlas and its functions with documents, it's relatively easy to get--but I am always grateful for in class tutorials/support :) ATLAS IS ON YOUTUBE!  I need to remember that when I run into an issue (which I am certain will happen sooner or later)  Thanks, Ann, for a great class!

On a final note, Nvivo is super cool--maybe someday--not now.

 

Looking ahead to Tuesday

Ann, the Woo (2008) has you written all over it, as you are a proponent of what Dr. Paulus calls ‘far left’ or ‘radical’ qualitative research.  I know you are committed to representational ethnographic methodology and counter-narrative.  Woo (2008) states in her introduction about the validity of arts-based research in education and in the field, but then she also goes on to discuss whether the research may not be ‘artistic’ enough (p.321).  It seems as if there is a fine line, and I have a tendency to align myself more to the center of the qualitative research continuum, but when she gives her rationale for filmmaking, “My impulse for translating this research into film emanates from my curiosity about what would happen if I could engage a wider audience in dialogue about the themes in my study, certainly an audience wider than the handful of souls who might read the conference papers, book chapter, and journal article where the study would be published” (Woo, 2008, p.322), I embrace the idea.  How does this shift occur?  I would love to attempt something of this nature, because I feel that although I am working on becoming a part of academia, I become excited about sharing those academic ideas with others that are not part of that group.  I am such a ‘new’ researcher and my conceptual understanding of the word ‘scholar’ is morphing before my eyes daily.  I need to look at myself in the ‘now’, and hopefully ideas like this will stay with me when I feel I can stand alone as a ‘true’ scholar and researcher, and then move into the idea of more interpretive research.

I am ready to use real data

Reflections on Tuesday 7/30

While we were working in ATLAS as a group, I was feeling excited and frustrated--wishing I had real data, but, I was still glad to have the opportunity to walk through coding in ATLAS.ti.  I realize that there are multiple ways to complete the same task (now) and I have a fairly positive outlook on using ATLAS.ti for the remainder of my program.  I was surprised at how comfortable I was with working with memos and coding, even with merging codes and creating families.  It seems as if I have learned more than I thought (and actually remembered it) from advanced qualitative methods last semester.  The reason that I say ‘fairly positive’ is because I plan on using ATLAS.ti from this point on in my studies, and, although I have not heard anything ‘negative’ (I am not sure if that is the word I want to use, but for now, I am not sure what word fits better) from my committee, especially my chair, I hope they will be on board and not become frustrated when I want to show work.  This is why the final project of this course is very important and beneficial to me, because it can be a working draft of what I will present in my comprehensive questions in order to provide my rationale for using this CAQDAS tool.

 Thoughts on my own upcoming projects for the course

I have decided to go deeper into ATLAS.ti.  Currently, I am finding articles and putting them into Mendeley.  For my second skillbuilder, I plan to take those pdf files, and ‘code’ them for my literature review.  I will revisit Paulus, Lester, Dempster (2013) chapter 4, and I will also revisit Boote & Beile (2005) in order to guide what I write, and I would like to read a little of  Saldana’s (2013) book on coding. 

Coding is still a mystery to me.  I have not had any data to code, save for a few exercises in my intro to qualitative research.  I realize there is no one way to code, and I also have learned that different methodologies, such as case study or ethnography, use different coding methods.  I am interested in ethnography, and I need to find pieces that relate to coding data according using ethnographic methods.  If anyone has a suggestion where to start, or a particular article or author, I would be very appreciative of any suggestions.

 

Using Video Data

I plan on using audio recorded interviews as the main source of data for my dissertation, but I was thinking of how much richer my interviews would be if I videotaped them.  I would like to use video, but as in Paulus, Lester, & Dempster (2013) it is brought up that seeking “ethical approval” is sometimes difficult.  I agree.  I have only written one IRB thus far, and, although I did not need many corrections, I found it challenging.  I support examining your personal research methods, and I am more than willing to be transparent when discussing every aspect of my intentions to the ethics board, but I do not feel experienced enough to write a compelling argument as to why to use video rather than audio.  I do believe that audio is very rich, because you can hear tone, intonation, breaths, sighs, even “filler” words, such as “um”, or “like”, however, I also feel that body language is equally important when interviewing a person. 

I thought I would try to respond to reflexive practice 8.1 on p. 5, ch. 8 in Paulus, Lester, & Dempster:

The practice is in red, and my response is in purple

 

“Banks (2007) suggested that visual data could be perceived by participants as a tool for surveillance and control, particularly for participants living and working in potentially sensitive contexts. Once this type of data has been collected, how would you protect your participants’ identities? Post a response in your blog.”

There are a few ways I can think of how to protect identity in a video, but two of them require special software (I believe) and the knowledge of that software.  The researcher could blur the faces of the participants (you see this often on television) in order to protect identity.  The researcher could also change the voice of the participant if that were an option. These could be done after the transcription and prior to any publication, so the researcher could revisit the video during analyisis. If the researcher did not have access to the software or no knowledge on how to use it, the researcher could ask the person to wear props, such as sunglasses or hats, but then, that would make the point of video moot for the researcher when analyzing the data. One benefit of video data is seeing facial expressions, and those items would not allow the researcher to see them. 

This is where I am at a loss—how do you even write a rationale for using video data?  I know it is done often, but how do researchers argue for it, when it seems so easy for an ethical reviewer to say, “You can obtain similar data on audio in order to meet the requirements of your study.”  I would like to try and look this up.  It is possible I will do it between the end of this session and the beginning of fall.  I believe that video interviews for my dissertation would be rich—richer than audio,  of course, and I would like to see how that language is used in an IRB.

Overwhelmed

Reflections on Thursday’s class

Thank you, Ann and Ginny for showing us two ways to transcribe using ATLAS.ti and Inqscribe.  Since I am planning to go deeper with Atlas for my second skillbuilder, I plan on using it for transcription.  I imported a voice file from my digital recorder prior to class on Thursday, and I had no trouble with the file.  It was an mp3 file, which Ann stated that that type of file was the easiest to import into Atlas.  I was also excited because before connecting my digital recorder to my laptop, I downloaded software for my digital recorder thinking I would have to convert the file, but not at all—I did not even have to use the software.  I do like the capabilities of both tools, but my intent is to work with Atlas and learn it.  I found the functions surprisingly user-friendly for a first encounter, and I am glad that I can keep the audio file along with the written transcription in one place.  I realize this can be done with Inqscribe, but I can also access other documents in ATLAS.ti, such as my highlighted and memoed articles to support my findings, my IRB, and my research notes/journal.  I feel fortunate to have such knowledge and experience surrounding me in this course.  Without this exposure and a ‘safety net’ (I know that Dr. Paulus, Ann, and Ginny get emails with technical questions at all hours), I would be much more intimidated by these tools.  I do not feel intimidated at all, in fact, I am more excited about some of these tools than I initially thought I would be.  I believe it is because I am just beginning my own research process, and I see the benefit of these tools for my own use.

 

My current research/work process

Many things have happened in the last few weeks.  I have been given my comprehensive exam questions, and I am reading and searching for articles.  I am also working on an IRB for a small pilot study that I hope to conduct during the fall semester, and I have been accepted to co-present at the Literacy Research Association in December this year.  I have stated prior that taking this course has been synchronous with my current point in my doctoral studies, yet I am feeling slightly overwhelmed.  I am grateful for Evernote, as I am attempting to incorporate it in my everyday life, be it school or otherwise, for ‘real time’ notes during class that I use in my blog posts, ideas, lists, and tasks to complete.  I am also fortunate to have the allowance to find citation management software, in my case Mendeley, to help me keep all of my articles together and hopefully expedite the process of writing.  I am looking forward to my practice with ATLAS.ti.  Unfortunately, I am still struggling with finding my academic voice.  Thanks to the syllabus, I have enrolled in Dr. Keene’s ENG 462, Writing for Publication, for the upcoming fall semester.  I am hoping this assists me in learning this process.  I am also enrolled in an independent study with another qualitative research professor in order to complete my prospectus this fall. Admittedly, I feel frustrated (and slightly embarrassed) as a former English teacher to have writing issues, but I believe much of my problem is that I do not allow myself enough time to write and rewrite.  My writing process is not thorough (I do not practice what I preached for so many years—I do not brainstorm, I do not outline, I do not write more than two drafts, I edit as I write, and I can rarely find a peer editor) and I am all too aware of this negative practice.  It reflects poorly upon me, and I am trying desperately to break this habitual occurrence.  I believe that disciplining myself to carve out time for me to write daily would be extremely beneficial and ease my frustration.  This is part of doctoral work, to become an independent researcher, and for me, it is difficult.  I am easily distracted by other things in my life—my children and their schoolwork/activities, daily chores/routines, and attempting some sort of exercise to keep me sane.  I will have to keep rearranging my schedule (and my priorities) in order to become successful.

 

Reflections on readings

Paulus, Lester, Dempster (2013), has got to be one of the most useful texts I have read.  I realize that this text was borne out of Dr. Paulus’s EDPY 604 course, and it should mirror what we are learning (which indeed it does).  I also realize how much I sound like a ‘brown-noser’ by writing this previous statement.  I do not say things to make people feel good unless it is warranted.  I cannot describe how much I appreciate this book, and how many more times I will reference this text during the remainder of my enrollment at this university.  In chapter 7, the authors clearly show the affordances and constraints of ATLAS.ti 7, MAXQDA 11, and NVivo 10, along with a brief history of CAQDAS and the (inaccurate) belief that its use could influence the findings or was only useful for ‘grounded theory’ qualitative research.  Having said that, seeing a demonstration of NVivo 10 by Ann in class, and working with ATLAS.ti on our own and in the class, I can see why some researchers could be unimpressed by these types of software packages, as stated that the user may not be aware of all of the possible functions of them.  I have only one question—in MAXQDA, they have “emoticode” figures for coding data.  I was wondering how those are used, as I am not even practiced in coding with words. 

I only realize how much more I need to learn after reading Konopásek (2008).  Although I see his point about how ultimately it is the researcher who does the work and finds/chooses the outcomes, not the computer program, I realize how unfamiliar I am with grounded theory, though I have heard it on multiple occasions, and I am planning to refer to Paulus, Lester, and Dempster (2013) in order to learn more about other methodologies and methods of qualitative research, then go to those references to find more. 

 

 

 

So much to say

I appreciated Everett Painter in class.  Although he was discussing apps for iOS, I am a PC and android OS person, but (as he said) similar apps can be found for these platforms. I am easily overwhelmed by so many options, yet I am also enticed by seeing how ‘easy’ things seem to be when an experienced user shows the capabilities of the application/software. I think to myself, “Oh! I  would like to do that!  That looks great! It seems so helpful!” Easily forgetting that I am watching a person who has had access and is familiar.  I need to remember to keep things simple, and do what works for me, and what I can integrate into my own system of doing things with the least amount of interference and frustration.

Reflecting on the discussion about what we love about technology--I still can't get over how much we do. I am using  Evernote in class each day since its introduction, and I am also using it outside of class for personal use. While taking notes in class, my eyes keep drifting to the SKY wifi smartpen (another device designed for compatibility with Evernote) Ginny discussed it during her presentation.  I still love the idea of writing things on paper that transfer--but I am still unsure about the transferability and also being left handed (I realize this sounds ridiculous, but white boards, chalk boards, even pen and paper are smeared or erased unless I hold the writing utensil at a nearly impossible angle).  I like to merge my strengths that are 'primitive' and the technology available to facilitate my work. I just tried to mark up a pdf in Evernote using Skitch on my pc.  It didn't work.  I like the idea of being able to mark up a pdf with my own handwritten notes--I DONT NEED AN IPAD!!(At least I keep telling myself this).  Maybe I need a SKY pen? ;)

One reflection on my first skillbuilder—I am glad that I did it, and it took much longer than I anticipated.  That is not a downside at all, since I was attempting to experiment with all of the features of each citation management software that I could.  This experience will merge seamlessly in my next skillbuilder, which is going more in depth with ATLAS.ti.   I am going to take screenshots of what I do today (uploading video, audio, and photographs) and I plan on marking pdfs in Mendeley and putting them into ATLAS.ti. 

Thank you Ann (and Ginny), for such an interesting class on what invivo does (and the ease of seeing discussion groups and tweets). Now academic researchers are able to access tools that marketing companies have used for years.  On one side, I say, it’s about time. As you said in class, marketers have had access to this type of data (with our permission, but in a sidestepping manner) for years.  Why shouldn’t researchers have a chance to see this type of data?  On another side, there is an ethical issue (exactly what is discussed in Garcia et al. (2009), and what we discussed in class.  I agree, this type of ‘privacy invasion’ is mind-boggling (as David was discussing), but again, Jami made a great point by saying if you don’t want anything on the internet, don’t put anything on the internet.  I know a few people who absolutely refuse to participate in social networking sites.  I participate, but I am also aware of what can be accessed.  Honestly, I do not believe that anything is private anymore.

Prior to reading Johnson’s (2011) piece on transcription software, I have been debating on ditching my digital recorder and using my phone--but I'm kind of getting used to my digital recorder.  I am also not sure about how the files from my phone can transfer to my pc (I have an AndroidOS as my smartphone).  I did, however, want to comment on Johnson’s article in particular.  Although it is useful, I would like to know how his almost ‘positivist’ paradigm fits within a qualitative research journal.  I realize that I am new to research, but this article seems very rigid, constrained, and quantitative.  Perhaps I am tired, and the heat is getting to me, nevertheless, I am going to point out only a few things.

“Unfortunately, voice recognition software does not offer time or accuracy benefits over the listen-and-type method. The currently available software is best employed as a means to ease the physical and mental stress of transcription” (Johnson, 2011, p. 91).

That is a strong statement.  The researcher used one recording.

“After adding in the time necessary to proof­read and edit, however, the listen-and-type method took 14.2 percent less time…”(Johnson, 2011, p.91).

I have issues with a number such as this—even this study as a ‘qualitative’ study.  Am I wrong?  Although transcription software is generally used by qualitative researchers due to interview recordings, this article sounds very quantitative.  There is a table on page 94.  I fully understand the author’s intent—to compare software to the ‘old way’ of transcribing, which is useful, but I wonder if there would have been a different way to approach it. 

 

I am looking forward to tomorrow's class and Nalani's short demonstration of Dragon.