I agree, buddy. I agree. :-)
I liked Rapley because he helped me start to sorta-kinda-maybe-almost understand what I might be doing when I analyze my data...but I have to admit it that while I was reading, I realized something. I like recipes. Not because I like to follow them when I cook--I actually hate those kinds of recipes. They do not at all help me with cooking and do not make the process any more enjoyable...but that is totally different topic. I like directions. I like to be told what to do. I try to convince myself that I don't need rules...but I do. Give me a rule, and I'll follow it. Tell me how to do it right, and I'll do it that way. I am was am a ballerina, not a modern dancer. I need my choreography, hours of rehearsal, and someone to tell me what I'm doing wrong, so I can do it right. DA (okay fine, qualitative research) is so outside of my comfort zone!
I am very happy and comfortable with my quantitative data. I'm in Special Education, after all. There is this part of me that would be happy to stay with my numbers. But the other part of me knows that that there is no such thing as objectivity and that numbers can't tell the stories. Anyway...Here are my meandering thoughts on the reading.
I like the explanations and examples of different key features that can be objects of focus in Ch. 6. (See--recipes. I like them) But then it seriously overwhelms me. Now I am freaking out, because it's like Thanksgiving dinner and I'm trying to follow 10 recipes at the same time. How is the sequence organized? How do participants choose words? How do they position themselves? And dammit the rolls are burning. But really. How do you know which things you want to focus on? Does you have a research question that guides you to focus on certain features? Or do you pretend that the data is leading you?
Much of the features they discussed were things we've talked about, but I liked "structural organization" because it made me realize that while I'm interested in the turn-taking and sequence organization...I'm also really interested in how instructional dialogue is organized structurally. Another section that stood out to me was the "So What?", where Rapley discussed Kitzinger and Firth's (1999) work in date-rape prevention. I have said that for years...I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks that prevention education strategies are actually given perpetrators an excuse. I recently had a conversation with a friend who was talking about girls inappropriate clothing choices on a recent church youth group trip. I tried to explain my perspective, and it didn't go over so well. I was trying to say that I think "the church" places all the blame and responsibility on females and doesn't demand that males take responsibility for their own actions. I guess what I was trying to say to her is that I wasn't bothered so much by what was being said, but by what was not being said. So apparently I was analyzing some discourse...so I should stop freaking out, cause I probably analyze discourse without knowing it.
I liked that he included discussion on documents-in-use, because this will probably be helpful to my analysis as the teacher and students use documents during the lesson. I hadn't really thought about that until I read this chapter.
In Chapter 8, when he talked about the "hidden role of the analyst"I realized that this is an issue that I have with my work scoring, coding, analyzing, interpreting, etc. student writing. I like that Rapley says "you need to gain a certain level of members' knowledge . . . of the language and routines of your research site" (p. 104) This is exactly why I need to step outside of my comfort zone and get comfortable with qualitative research. His mandate is the exact opposite of the objective crap my field likes to believe in and promote. I happen to think that the knowledge I have that interferes with my objectivity with looking at student writing is quite valuable, thank you. :-)
On p. 106, there are several long quotes from Firth and Kitzinger (1998). The second one talks about the dangers of decontextualizing data extracts. I think this is a great reminder, because when we start looking at pulling out fragments and analyzing and looking at specific features, there is the potential to use talk in an inappropriate role to make claims that are not supported by the data when considered in context. This makes me think of when people use quotes, or lyric excerpts, or quotes to support a point they are making, without really knowing with those things mean. It's propaganda. And it works. But the people who do these things understand the power of language. They understand that it is language in action. I mean...not the average person who quotes Robert Frost in an effort to support nonconformity...he or she is likely just confused. But the advertisers, political advisors, and lawyers who knowingly and intentionally use language in this way. What's that old cliché? You can make the data say whatever you want it to say. I think that's the danger of not being reflexive. And I think part of being aware of your own biases is making sure that we are considering data extracts in context--both the local context and the larger context that includes the historical trajectory, broader themes, and concepts of power,etc.
"How do you know which things you want to focus on? Does you have a research question that guides you to focus on certain features? Or do you pretend that the data is leading you?" This will make more sense over time. Ideally the research question guides you, but when you are just starting out it really is good to engage in "unmotivated looking" and just see what is there. Usually a combination of having some initial ideas and then modifying those based on what is there - not much different from any kind of qualitative work, really.
ReplyDelete"I liked "structural organization" because it made me realize that while I'm interested in the turn-taking and sequence organization...I'm also really interested in how instructional dialogue is organized structurally." Then you will really want to start to read some of the educational researchers who have taken up CA and DA, like Cazden and Mercer and others, because you don't want to re-invent the wheel.
"I was trying to say that I think "the church" places all the blame and responsibility on females and doesn't demand that males take responsibility for their own actions. I guess what I was trying to say to her is that I wasn't bothered so much by what was being said, but by what was not being said." Yup. Controlling women's bodies. There are many ways of doing this through discourses that are evoked in various institutions and programs.
"His mandate is the exact opposite of the objective crap my field likes to believe in and promote. I happen to think that the knowledge I have that interferes with my objectivity with looking at student writing is quite valuable, thank you. :-) " Ha ha, yes. Indeed.