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".