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.