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.