Not Rapley, but another book

I usually don't wait until the 11th hour to post my blog, but I was having a particularly hard time thinking of something to say other than, "meh" about Rapley's Doing Conversation book. I sat on this book for a week--and I even went out trying to find some other interesting subject to post on, but nothing was very inspiring. I kept wanting to write about Rapley, even though the world is filled with words to think about and play with. All of this starting from an exigent point to write a post that reflected my actual excitement and interest on DA. I wouldn't be able to do that if I wrote a summary/reflection on Rapley's text. His book just didn't say anything new to me. He brings up some great points, but the end motto was, "language offers us a variety of insights." <sigh> Call me a "erudite humanist curmudgeon," but I would not have invested so much of my young adulthood in an English program if I didn't think language has varieties, which then offers us space for exploration. Acknowledging variations is part of our rhetorician's credo...that is, if we had one, but we couldn't agree on how/what/when to say anything. Bazinga!--a little rhetorical pun for you.

Ok, so my point: Rapley's work is good...if you haven't read it before. And really, after a while, these "intro to data collection/mining/crafting" books all say it. So I'm not giving him a high-five for it, out-right.

Thus in search of something to spark interest, I turned to a group who keep me jazzed and happy: my fellow 631 peers and their blogs. I visited a couple of pages, and Jackie's blog spoke the most to me because of our similiar experiences. In her commentary, she discusses her experience teaching ENG 102, which includes a qualitative research unit. The shared experience of managing the class, while simultaneously trying to better our understanding of this methodological approach got me thinking: where are the books informing us to become qualitative research teachers?

I feel very fortunate that I completed my MA specifically in composition/rhetoric pedagogy, with a subculture that focused on the "unfamiliar genre project." This experience pushed me to think about how to relate issues of writing, especially when people don't understand the style in which to write. I used to be terrified of writing classes--because of its seemingly subjective evaluation--but that really isn't the case. There are heuristics and standards to classify and define writing, as long as you make sure you have corroborating it with the appropriate audience, context, and exigence. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that writing is easy, or teaching is easy. But there are ways to create evaluation and assessment features, which allow people to learn, practice, and develop these skills.

So where are the pedagogical books for qualitative research? I think I'd like to read one of those because it would require an author to detail the rhetorical situation of a learning experience that produces a specific style of writing. And that's a new topic that I would like to ingest. I understand that qualitative research is difficult to contain because, as researchers, we are trying to take a societal temperature. That means a lot thermometers for a variety of orifices; definitely not for the faint of heart. So writers, like Rapley, share their stories of collecting data because it shows us moments of how those "temperatures" are acquired, processed, and interpreted. I know I developed my dissertation theory from another researcher's work, even though she was discussing a totally different group, religion, presence, etc. Her work inspired me. But I get hung up that I'm asking the wrong questions, in the wrong way. I think I want a qual-research-ped book because it would allow me to understand the evaluative criteria used to assess projects. I don't need to hear about varieties of language, but evaluative models on research.

But the night is closing down, and so must I. Definitely things to think about--including a book hunt in the library and on Amazon. Trena, any title suggestions?!?

Here Lies Sacks, the Fairest Unicorn of Them All

Trena warned us in class that we'd either love or hate Conversation Analysis, and I can understand how people can respond to CA like that. But I've been known (and sometimes "accused," I should say) of being too "hard" on texts, so I'll approach this week's post with a bit of English composition theory by Peter Elbow. Elbow argues that we should be critical of a text in two polemic ways: as a believer and as a doubter. In this way, critiques are situated with both positive and negative commentary. Nothing is ever totally a waste of writing or a waste of reading. As a composition teacher, it's a good policy to read student papers with this lens, so I'll try it with CA.

Believing commentary:

I absolutely think it's phenomenal that we have a methodology that focuses on the act of transcription. It's such an underrated skill for qualitative research because novice or intermediate researchers are so caught up on learning how to conduct qualitative projects, from setting up research questions to analyzing data, that they forget the details. One of those details that gets buried is the act of transcribing. If the data is the primary source used to respond and answer the research questions, transcription should be done with some precision and accuracy. I like that Hutchby and Wooffitt highlight that, "transcription is done by the analyst him or herself. Transcription thereby becomes an integral part of analysis, since in repeatedly listening to the tape one begins to hear and to focus on phenomena that may subsequently form part of an analytic account" (71). Yes! It's the very act of engage with one medium--a recording--and turning it into another one--a written document--that requires systemization by the researcher.

If we pay attention to the style of word exchange, then it's only fitting that we create vocabulary to detail conversations. Sack's (and Hutchby and Wooffitt's) coding of conversational hallmarks was pretty awesome. I especially liked the discussion on "turn-taking" because I never thought of binding a conversation in the now. Limiting a conversation to its time means every utterance is possible. So the fact that we only get one conversation per time implies that the conversation is important since we only have one chance at it.

Doubting commentary:

But at the same time, saying that the conversation is only now? Nope, that doesn't fit. That means there's no background to our speakers. But the very literacy capabilities of a speaker plays into the conversation. Frankly, my experiences impact where I go, with whom I speak, and on what topics I discuss.

Additionally, I find his methodology utterly self-serving. He wasn't sure that this would actually lead anywhere, but it did fuel his research goals. Maybe it's Hutchby and Wooffitt's fault, but it seems that Sacks' was a bit arrogant about why people should utilize CA.

Moreover, his theory does not lie in either linguistics or sociology. I'm more familiar with the former than latter, but not by that much. I find it problematic that he can't build a methodology that reacts to a disciplinary field. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that we should, or even have to, organize under these disciplinary categorizes. (I mean, I am a College of Arts and Science student running wild in a College of Ed class.) The reason, however, that these disciplinary standards are referred to is because it sets up a contextual frame for which concepts are issued, and then debated. Everyone talks about identity, but the ways in which we assign "identity" and the conversations around is are unique. This uniqueness isn't without merit since it ensures that our audience can actually engage in the conversation. Another 20th century rhetorician established the metaphor of "entering the parlor": the idea is that when one enters a dinner party, you listen to hear conversations then engage with your stance. Not that you just enter a room, and start hurling opinions, regardless of what is being said.

Biggest Question: 

I'm not sure I like entirety of CA. It has some hinky standards that mess with my definitions of parole. But I'm having a hard time discerning how the analysis in CA is different from DA? There's an example in the book that analyzed a speaker's choice of words (37). The analyst (I think it's Sacks' work) says that it's important the speaker started to "girl," but then changed to say "chick." But isn't the change that happened based on the speaker's sense of langue? I'm not sure how the CA-analyst can make any judgments on a speaker's choices. So apart from the transcription, what's the difference in the analysis between CA and DA?

Sorry--one more question: the first time I heard about CA it was in terms of second language acquisition. It made sense to me that these teachers try to focus and pinpoint how, and if, their students have made it to a native or native-like speaking standard. But doesn't CA automatically discredit speaker's ability because that's part of the CA? I think I'm missing something here. Also, is that ethical to use CA in a non-native speaker's moment, since it discredits contextual factors? 

Hmmmm. I need a cookie. 

*****

Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Woffitt. Conversation Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. Print.

Meh. Meh? Meh! Qualitative Introduction

Tim Rapley's Doing Conversation, Discourse and Document Analysis was productive and unproductive. I feel like I am always reading introductory books on qualitative research. So a lot of the information that he presented in chapters 1-4 was repeated in other texts on research. For example, he puts out the need for qualitative research when comparing two statements: "Freedom fighter kills politician," and "Terrorist kills politician." The terminology one would choses contextualizes her social ideologies. [Meh.] I know that already. But I'm not sure why it's part of the introduction to a methods book. If someone wants to "do conversation," don't they already know that word choice is a huge consideration? [Meh?] But a little contextual credit goes to Rapley, especially as I review the chapter to post on the anniversary of 9/11. Our society has changed its stance on using these words, and it has become part of our national voice. One point for Rapley for using a good contextual example to prove words matter. [Meh!] (But I don't think I have ever heard American soldiers being referred to as "freedom fighters," while I have readily heard the US media call foreign parties "terrorists." Are these two terms part of a binary pair? I always thought it was soldier/terrorist.) So Rapley introduces a standard issue--albeit one that needs to be included here--with a kick ass example. Thus my confused title remains for the post. I'm not sure if I'm bored or happy with the text.

One subject that was pretty nifty was in chapter 5 on the Jeffersonian transcription styles. A researcher includes additional markers in a transcription to implicate tempo, style, stress, and tone in the speaker's voice. In general, I found that I transcribe slowly. We're talking one hour to listen to a sound bite, write it down, listen to it again, fix it, listen to it again, fix it, listen to it again, then maybe move on. I'm not sure if I'm super slow at it, a little too OCD and trying to get everything down, or missing some great tip to go faster. But it's hard to be upset about the time when I'm confident about the transcription once it's done.

Additionally, I never thought about video transcription. Rapley definitely got a "Meh!" on that commentary. I've never done a project that required a video file, so it never occurred to me to include taped cues. One question I have is how to include all the video cues within the audio transcription. I know my OCD is going to kick in to make sure everything is aligned. Hmm.

Agendas, Theories, and Methodologies: Tree, Venn, or Constellation Model

Last week in class, I tried to ask a question about the connection of a researcher's agenda to her theory and method paradigm. Unfortunately, I didn't explain it well, so it came off a bit stupid (and probably random). Lucky for me, the reading this weekend from Jorgenson and Phillips' Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method brought the issue back to bat.

My original question, revised: in post-structuralism--and really, I should be saying Derridian deconstruction--"il n'y a pas de texte [there is nothing outside of the text]." The stance creates a unique moment in creating the contextual space of a discursive moment. Based on the intertextuality of the articulations, the scene that develops is only of the "now": who is there and what is said in that space. That's a great axiom for discourse analysts (trying to finish a dissertation) to incorporate, since it limits the ethnographic detail needed to learn the articulated varieties. So if someone were claiming a post-structural theoretical backing, it sheds light to her methods, but what about her agenda for research? In the same way that discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis differ in their stance to right injustices, doesn't a person's agenda have to match their theory, and thus additionally their methods? My ultimate question: what is the relationship between a researcher's agenda, theory, and method? The title to this blog post implies that I'm looking to create a visual model to metaphorize this issue, but that's only because I like visuals. With that said, how would a visual model look to represent these point situating the researcher's ethos: tree diagram, venn diagram, or constellation model? I understand that I'm limiting the available representations, but that's only because I can see one of these styles working to explain this model.

Reading "Across Approaches" brought this growing conceptual issue to hand because of the various styles of interpretive research. The author's explain that Fairclough posits two analytical dimensions: (1) the event and (2) the theory that drives the method; Laclau and Mouffe stand between articulation and discourse (140-41). But this all stems from the genesis of a research question. Research questions start organically: someone sees something and questions it. We are coming face-to-face with a bias/agenda driven issue. That researcher then compiles a lit review, reviews theories, or falls back on her expertise, assembles her theory-method concoction. Moreover, the "Analytical Tools" section is shaped by the researcher's initial sighting of the issue, and then her stance on it. Because of this, there has to be an equal tripart consideration of framing a qualitative project.

But I think this falls apart because a researcher's agenda isn't constrained by a boundary based on time. Or at least it shouldn't. If a researcher based her stance on a case or concept, it sounds an awfully lot like positivism. Which no post-structuralist is going to sign up for. Ever. They'd rather poke their eye out. So while I'm sure of that, I'm no longer sure of this posting. I had the proverbial wheels spinning, but maybe they were spinning out of control.

And now I can't build the model I wanted so badly at the beginning of this post.

Here's to another week of theoretical ramblings...