3.5 More on qualitative methods

Perl:  Laurelle led our discussion of Sondra Perl and raised some of the important questions that followed up on Perl's characterization of unskilled writers processs.  Although I tried to use this talk as a segue to you analysis of the Sample transcript, I'm not really sure how successful that was, since we seemed more interested in the findings than the method.  


Theoretical stories + analysis of conversations:  You presented theoretical theories for the sections of transcript in Sample 2 - and they were awesome.  You looked for important topics of converation, patterns in what was said, digressions, how speakers represented themselves in terms of language choices, agency (how much control they had), and ideology (value judgments, assumptions, beliefs).  Some of the language choices you looked at included hesitations and repetitions, repeated phrases, what was said first/last.  This was a short/not inclusive introduction to coding + categorizing + building theoretical stories.  For more background on analyzing conversations + transcripts, narrative and building theoretical stories you might look at the following.

Andrews, Molly, Squire, Corrine, and Tamboukou, Maria. (2008). Doing narrative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage


Bamberg, Michael. (2004). Talk, small stories, and adolescent identities. Human Development 47, 331-353.

Bamberg, Michael, & Georgakopoulou, Alexandra. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in narrative and identity analysis.  Stories & Talk, 28 (3), 377-396.


Clandinin, D. Jean (Ed.). (2007). Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology.  Thousand Oaks: Sage.

 McAdams, Dan P. (2003). Identity and the life story.  In Robyn Fivush, & Catherine A. Haden (Eds.), Autobibographical memory and the construction of the autobiographical self (pp.187-209). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum. 

McAdams, Dan P. (1993). The stories we live by: Personal myths and the making of the self. New York; William Morrow.

McAdams, Dan P., Josselson, Ruthellen, & Lieblich, Amia. (2006) Identity and story: Creating self in narrative. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.


Riessman, Catherine Kohler. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences.  Thousand Oaks: Sage.


For "classic: books on grounded theory, see link. 


Heath: Julio and Marie discussed Heath's ethnographic methods - and after reviwing her findings - raised questions about researchers' investment in the theory they bring to their work, and whether and how this "theoretical lens" might shape their work in ways they don't necessarily anticipate.

In her introduction to her book, Heath had this to say about how she chose the communities she would study.


My entry into these specific communities came through a naturally occurring chain of events. in each case, I knew an old-time resident in the community, and my relationship what that individual opened the community to me.  I had grown up in a rural Piedmont area in a neighboring state, so the customs of both communities were very familiar to me.though many years had passed since I had been a daily part of such cultural ways.

A personal connection, and an invitation seem to be the "reason" for selecting the two communities she studied - one white (Roadville) and one African American (Trackton).  At the same time, this line of reasoning does not really answer the questions you raised about relationships between theory, and preconceptions.


Young;  Neiha gave a clear presentation on the complexities and political implications of identity.  I am afraid I didn't help by adding out of order information, and I am hoping we might take up the questions she raised about the research method at the beginning of next class. 


For next class:
In addition to covering the reading listed below - we will review for the midterm - which will focus on the research essays you have read so far in light of the methods we have discussed (up through quasi-experimental, which we will cover next week).  We will use your questions as a basis for the review.  We decided that exam would be either take-home - or in-class = but as I am re-thinking this I think we will need to discuss it further. It doesn't seem fair to grade exams written in a limited time to exams that can be written at home with opportunities to revise & rethink ideas over a period of days.  So either I need to present 2 different exams, I need to grade by two different standards - or ??  We can talk about it.

Have a good week!

Read:  Mertens, Ch 4 Experimental & quasi-experimental ;  Mertens, Ch 12 Data Collection; Brand & Leckie, pdf; Flower & Hayes, 253;  also read  pages 404-412 with special attention to box 13.2.