Readings Nov. 14

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Potter, J. & Hepburn, A. (2012). Eight challenges for interview researchers. In J.F. Gubrium & J.S. Holstein (Eds.) Handbook of interview research (2nd ed.) London, Sage.

Antaki, C., Billig, M.G., Edwards, D. & Potter, J.A., (2003). Discourse analysis means doing analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings. Discourse Analysis Online, 1. 

Goodman, S. (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(4) p. 265-275.

*********************** 

Reflection on ATLAS.ti and Technology

I like to rate technology based on two things: is it user-friendly and does it do what I need it to? ATLAS.ti allowed me to organize my documents and the analysis of those documents. It housed an audio file, a handful of pdf's, and my notes (memos) and codes. I was able to link my audio file with my transcription while I created the transcription. So, yes it did what I needed it to do. 

However, the program itself is neither intuitive or user-friendly. I had to reference Ann Bennett's notes and the help section every time I worked on my analysis, which considerably slowed down my work. I am quick to learn new technology and consider myself tech savvy. This was a frustrating experience for me. Also, ATLAS.ti is not available on Mac's right now. I had to borrow an ASUS Eee PC laptop. Combining this slow, terribly designed machine with a non-user-friendly program was not conducive to maintaining a calm working environment. 

Side note: I tried the iPad app. It was a bigtime failure. The audio recording does not run in the background, so when the energy saver started, the audio turned itself off. I coded some documents and only some of the coding transferred to the PC. I would not recommend the app until some major updates have taken place. 

I am very grateful that the Ed Tech people had laptops to borrow. I understand that they can't stock high quality machines. I really depend on using technology to increase the speed and lessen the frustrations of the huge electronic workload that I have to maintain. I'm just giving my opinions on the technology troubles that I've had the last semester. I think you get my point, and I am now moving on to readings.

Readings

Goodman: Wrote 5 truths that discursive work should have to claim generalizability. Mostly linking to rhetorical actions to strategies, and those strategies can be found across a range of contexts doing the same action. I think this is interesting and wonder if there are enough empirical research articles to do this. However, this is helpful to me in that there are not a lot of articles on art teacher evaluation, but if I see that the art teachers use a strategy like "I was just doing x, and then y happened" to accomplish a certain thing, then I can compare this strategy and action with other contexts besides art teacher conversations. My work would then be generalizable and fruitful by providing a new context for that strategy/action. (Does that sound right?)

Antaki, et. al: A practical document as I'm going through analyzing data. The authors warn of 6 mistakes made in data analysis. In my own data, I have tried to use excerpts where interesting actions were taking place. However, the actions that I am choosing to focus on are ones that I have read about, like self-repair. This is a helpful document, and one that I will go back to as I complete my data analysis paper.

Potter & Hepburn: I wish I had read this chapter before I wrote my comps... I would have used this! From other readings over the last two semesters, I understood that the interviewer's questions should be included in transcription, because what they say does something. However, I hadn't thought of the acknowledgement tokens (p. 20, 27) as actions that push a social science agenda (yikes!).

 

Readings Nov. 7

Lester, J.N. & Paulus, T.M. (2011). Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies, 1-16. 

Paulus, T. & Lester, J.N. (2012). Making learning ordinary: ways undergraduates display learning in a CMC task. Text & Talk 33(1), 53-70. 

************************ 

For a full review of Lester & Paulus (2011) from July 22nd, click here.

Paulus & Lester's (2012) work is a continuation of the 2011 article on CMC (Computer-mediated communication) in Dr. Smith's nutrition course. In this study, the students were asked to write a blog after a lecture on dietary supplements. Their writing prompt was "What did you learn or how did your understandings change?" (p.59).  The authors found three ways that students oriented themselves to learning in this situation: an extreme state, a neutral state, and no learning. 

As I'm reading work by Lester and/or Paulus, I understand DP and DA better than at any other point in my studies. (So thank you.) It is a little strange writing a blog about my learning on an article about how students negotiate learning within blogs. I would say that to this point I have used a neutral state to assess my learning by reporting the news. But now, with the addition of the last two sentences, the blog has become reflexive.

Readings Oct. 31

Gee, J.P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge. 

************************ 

Peer Review- I reviewed Amanda's work and gave her feedback. I opted out of receiving peer feedback. I think that peer reviews can be beneficial.

Data Session- This was a fantastic experience. I enjoyed working with the group to try to understand what was happening in Natalia's recording. It was truly unmotivated looking on my part, and we were able to help provide an outsider viewpoint.

Gee-

Unit 3 consisted of "building" tools focused on how knowledge is socially constructed by discourse participants. Several of these tools continue to use grammatical devices that make my head hurt. Tool 14 is the Significance Building Tool. Gee started to lose me when he went into the details of clauses and phrases in the foreground or background. However, it does make sense to look at word choice to see how people use words like crucial to construct that something is more important.

(p.88) Gee wrote that language constructs the world and proposes 7 tasks that we use in our discourse to build reality: significance, activities, identities, relationships, politics, connections, and sign-systems and knowledge. (I don't agree that the things Gee lists as sign-systems are not language. Maybe I could understand that mathematics are not a language but a system of signs we use. However, he also includes hip-hop and poetry. Is this just his definition of little-d discourse?)

Unit 4 included 11 theoretical tools. I really enjoyed these tools. They make a lot of sense to me. Situated meaning makes me think about the insider and outsider debate. You would need to simultaneously need to recognize and be able to define words or phrases with situated meaning and make sure that you are not taking those words and phrases for granted. (Social Languages Tool sounds like Big-D Discourse?)

I'll give Gee a break. I can tell that some of the tools will help me with data analysis... not all of them, but I will probably use these as a starting point or when I'm stuck in data analysis.

 

Readings Oct. 24

Gee, J.P. (2011). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York: Routledge. 

*********************** 

     As I read the introduction to this book, I couldn't understand why Trena didn't like Gee's work. Then, I read Unit 1 and 2. The organization is choppy, the content takes a cognitive stance, and the work's focus is grammar. I am not a fan of reading about grammar. My eyes started rolling back in my head. I was making mad and angry faces at the pages. I included mean-spirited expletive notes in the margins. I am not a Gee fan.

     However, to follow the rules, here is a summary and a synthesis of the reading. Gee outlines 12 of 27 tools for discourse analysis. I can imagine when I am in the midst of data analysis, perusing these 27 tools to help me look at my data with a fresh lens. However, the tools are repetitive (p. 55, Gee admits that "the why this way and not that way tool" is "not really separate from the Fill in Tool or the Doing Not Saying Tool") and several are based on grammatical structures (stanzas, subjects, and topics and themes.) I believe that I would use The Making Strange Tool. This goes back to critical discourse analysis and taken for granted discourse. I can see the benefit of examining assumptions and what was not in the talk. Also, the Deixis and Intonation Tools seem useful, and I've seen this is some of our other readings. 

     Part of DA research is that as a constructor of discourse, I am an expert on understanding the action of talk and text. Gee mentions this as well on p. 13 that the task of analyzing discourse is similar to the task of being engaged in discourse. I do not feel like I am an expert at grammar (in the sense that Gee is) and cannot imagine myself delving into participants use of clauses, stanzas, subjects, and predicates. (Although, I can see how some people might do just that.)

     Here's hoping that Units 3 and 4 are more big picture like Gee describes, because I don't think the margins of my book can take any more profanity.

Readings Oct. 10

(optional) Ladegaard, H.J. (2011). ‘Doing power’ at work: Responding to male and female management styles
in a global business corporation. Journal of Pragmatics 43, 4-19. 
 
(optional) Gabriel, R. & Lester, J. (Forthcoming). The romance quest of education reform: A discourse analysis of The LA Times’ reports on value-added measurement teacher effectiveness. Teacher’s College Record. 

Price, E. Dissertation proposal: A discourse analysis of individualized transition planning meetings. 

Johnston, J. Dissertation proposal: A discourse analysis of beginning teachers’ identity negotiation during a student-teaching internship. 

************************ 

Questions for Elizabeth

1) What is your best tip for working with ATLAS.ti?

2) Did you approach your data with unmotivated listening or do you have a feel for what you are looking for?

3) Can you describe the early stages of listening to your data and starting to describe the patterns you hear?
4) What was your reasoning behind using other researcher's excerpts in your methodology section to explain the DAM? Would you use excerpts from your data if you had your data when you wrote this (or when you write your first 3 chapters?)

Questions for Joshua

1) Can you give us an update since some of us last saw you? What has been your biggest challenge with this type (DP/DA) work?
2) Have you started analyzing your data? How is that going? What is easier than you thought it would be, and what is hardest?
3) Can you describe the early stages of listening to your data and starting to describe the patterns you hear? 

Readings Oct. 3

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. 

************************

Chapter	Summary	Of Note
4- Analysing Data I: Building Collections and Identifying Phenomena	·3 stages to CA procedure: find something interesting (unmotivated looking), describe what is happening formally with attention to sequence (what happens before and after), go back to the data to see if this description holds up (if not rinse and repeat.) ·Particularized and generalized · 2 Questions when examining data: what action is happening? and how do people orient (also an action) to that action? ·Actions people do- continuers, you say x, oh	I had questions in the DP class about the role of variation. The description of the 500 telephone calls (p. 91) helped me understand that identifying variation helps the DP/DA/CA researcher to relook at the data and reformulate their interpretation. I also had an early question in the DP class (which was answered, but I found it again here) about the credentials needed to be a DP researcher. Hutchby and Woofitt address this as commonsense knowledge and a sound understanding of the culture (p. 106).
5- Analysing Date II: Extended Sequences and Single Cases	· Short and long talk sequences are equally analyzable. This chapter focuses on longer talk sequences. o Single case- CA is particularized to the single case (but generalized to patterns of talk). The same anaylsis holds true for single case as shorter sequences described in earlier chapters.  § Telephone conversations 4 steps p. 117 § Fishing/ my-side telling o Storytelling- still in sequences and series §  Story preface- storyteller gets permission from receiver to use more than one turn-construction unit.	My mother and I are storytellers. I spoke with her on the phone today and noticed how we told our stories. One interesting part of our sequence was when I was telling my story, I expected a continuer (um-hm) and paused for one, but my mother didn’t say anything. I stopped the story to ask “are you still there?”
6- Talk in Institutional Settings	·  Formal- court, news interviews, job interviews, traditional style teaching, ceremonial occasions (weddings come to mind) o Turns are constrained and people can get in trouble for speaking out of turn (courtrooms). Some people participating in these conversations must position themselves as objective and neutral in the conversation (journalists, judges). ·  Informal- business meetings, retail/service, doctor’s appointments o Turns have boundaries, but usually proceed like “quasi-conversations” (p. 151).	This chapter was particularly interesting to me, because my dissertation topic is based on institutional text. I think that participants will use institutional talk when I collect data in focus groups, because they will be in a classroom speaking with other teachers.

            I nerded out while reading this book. It was a pleasure to read- because of the writing style, but also because of the content. I like the practicality of CA, and these chapters brought home some of my earlier questions (see above.) If I’m doing being-a-CA-nerd, then I might as well say it- I’m excited about reading the rest of this book!

 

Readings Sept. 26

Rapley, T. (2007). Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis. London: Sage. 

**********************

    After reading chapters 6-10, I thought another table was in order...

Chapter	Summary	Of Note
6: Exploring conversations	·  Conversation analysis examines how language is action and what those actions do. ·  This chapter includes specific actions that can happen in text including: o  Perspective-display sequence o turn-taking organization o  question-answer sequence o agreement or disagreement (preferred or dispreferred response) ·  Word choice is action. ·  Placement of words or utterances within a narrative is action. (This can be simple or complex.)	The words people choose are actions and examining what people do can lead to practical applications. Example: saying no to sexual advances is anti-social. Often we don’t say no, but others understand and infer the word no.
7: Exploring conversations about and with documents	·  Documents and other texts are discourses that are situated and used to do actions. “…documents…and related technologies...both constrain and enable our actions and interactions” p. 89 ·  Having a range of documents can help researchers to understand discourse in more depth (example: the diagnosis of Anna-Lize’s psychiatric condition.) ·  Discourse can transform the content of documents as people use the documents (example: the pharmacist reading a research report on drugs and adding contextual information as the document is read aloud.) ·  Documents are “spoken for” (p. 95) (example: video in the Rodney King trial is made sense of collaboratively between witness and defense lawyer.)	Things can be part of everyday, taken-for-granted, social occurrences. The author asks questions about how I read his book and take notes. In order to interact with the information, I buy hard copies of textbooks instead of kindle ebook versions. I find that I highlight, take notes, and draw diagrams when I have paper to write on (the margins and text lines.) If I have the e-book version of a text, I just read and do not grasp the information because I do not interact in the same ways. (Side note: interesting that the author called the case on pg 95 the Rodney King trial when the officers were on trial.)
8: Exploring conversations and discourse: some debates and dilemmas	·  Analysis of discourse and conversation as outlined in Rapley’s book has been critiqued for not being critical of power structures. Rapley’s solution to the problem of when and what power structures to attend to in discourse is to pay attention to how the participants orient to power and use his own judgment, as well as, relevant literature to guide how he handles power structures in context. ·  Other possible critiques of analysis: o  the hidden role of the analyst- sometimes understanding can only come with insider knowledge, researchers have taken-for-granted knowledge and unique perspectives, and researchers should be reflexive of the role of their own knowledge. o  focus on brief moments of interaction- use next-turn proof procedure and provide excerpts so readers can see for themselves. o  working with local contexts of focus group and interview data- include interview questions as well as answers and realize that participants may not believe or behave what they say. o  working with power- “power can work as much by encouraging persons to speak, as by silencing them” (p.109)	Loved this quote from Harvey Sacks: “I have a bunch of stuff and I want to see whether an order for it exists. Not that I want to try to order it, but I want to try to see whether there’s some order to it” p. 109.
9:Exploring documents	·  What is said is as important as what is not said. To see the whole picture, examine both.] ·  Text is rhetorical, just like talk. They also are action- they do things. ·  Approach talk and text with skepticism. ·  Where talk and text came from (or how they evolved) can be important to understanding how talk and text is historically and socially situated now.	Ugh- See below.
10: Studying discourse: some closing comments	·  Analyzing discourse begins before you collect data. It occurs when an idea/interest is formed, when ROLs are collected, and while RQs are formed and revised. ·  There is not “a truth”, but being credible and plausible is the researcher’s job. o  Look for patterns and variation. o  Be transparent with process. o  Compare your work to other work. o  Work with participants. o  Be reflexive. ·  The author summarizes key points of analyzing conversations, discourse and documents (p. 130-131).	Rapley talks about new literary forms of sharing research- like poetry and dramas. I’ve seen this referenced in some of our other readings. I’m guessing that this is not happening in journals, but maybe in book form? Any examples of this I could look at?

            Overall, I enjoyed this book. I actually read it all in one day so I could get the flow of the book. The only chapter I did not like was Chapter 9. I agree with Rapley that we should treat documents as rhetorical objects (texts) and be skeptical of the assumptions within the content, as well as, the context of the document (who created it, what does it do, what is it’s history.) However, I got lost with the “histories of the present” section and the case study that followed. I didn’t get the point, and I bulled my way through those pages.

            Mostly, this book put my mind at ease. It was a very straightforward description of CA/DA, and I do not feel intimidated to do this kind of research work. I actually can believe that “this work is deeply fascinating and, above all, fun” p. 131.

 

Readings Sept. 19

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. 

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.) Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13- 23). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Wiggins, S., Potter, J. & Wildsmith, A. (2001). Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Journal of Health Psychology 6(5), 5-15. 

********************

Summary of the first 3 chapters of Hutchby and Woofitt’s book.

Chapter	Summary	Of Note
1: What is Conversation Analysis?	·  Major names: Harvey Sacks (founder of CA), Gail Jefferson (Jeffersonian transcription), Schegloff ·  CA uses naturally occurring talk, specifically focusing on talk-in-interaction, and believes talk is structured, organized action. ·  Tools: next-turn proof procedure, membership categories, word choice for fact building ·  Ties to ethnomethodology (Garfinkel)- how people account for their own and others’ actions.	I’m starting to understand (after reading the section on ethnomethodology) why DP researchers include DP, DA, CA, and ethnomethodology in descriptions of their studies. Each piece is important to DP, but they are all distinct ways of doing research.
2: Conversational Structures: The Foundations of Conversation Analysis	1)   Sequential order a)    Turns are taken serially, but also are linked together. 2)   Inferential order a)    People rely on their interpretation to know what kind of turn is occurring 3)   Temporal order a)    Turn construction units occur in time. 4)   All 3 orders interact during talk a)    4 key analytic factors to illustrate that interaction i)     Adjacency and Preference Structures ii)    Turn-taking (1) Turn-construction (a) Projectability (b) Transition-relevance Place (2) Turn-distribution iii)  Overlapping Talk iv)  Repair and Correction	This chapter was straightforward. It is good to know that “most instances of overlap occur in an environment of possible transition-relevance places” (p. 54), because I am an overlapper! I thought I was just not paying attention, but maybe I was projecting the completion the end of a turn-construction unit.
3: Data and Transcription	· Data are the audio or video files not the transcription. · Transcription is part of the analysis process. o Transcribe turn-taking and the texture of the utterances (prosody, pauses, laughter, breath intakes) ·  Transcripts are impressionistic- they are what the transcriber heard and wrote.	It sounds as if CA researchers transcribe all their data using some form of Jeffersonian, because “any sound may have interactional import” (p.72).

            Hutchby and Woofit’s book has been helpful. It feels like a few missing pieces are starting to fall into place. Conversation analysis is the how of DP. The structure of using naturally occurring talk, looking at how people use talk and text, and the importance of listening repeatedly to the data in DP work all came from or are supported by CA. I think that I will be ready, when the time comes, to collect, transcribe, analyze, and report my data for my dissertation. (Also, I’ve added Sack’s lectures to my to-read list.)

            Jefferson’s article compared ways to report and analyze data using varying depths of transcription. She has a no-nonsense, no apologies way of approaching her work. For example, when she asks herself what good is transcribing to such detail, she replies“…it seems to me that one cannot know what one will find until one finds it…” (p. 15). She includes the work that laughter can do to enhance a declination or mask words possibly “on purpose.” She also illustrated how the same word can be enunciated or spoken with dialect depending on the work the word is doing. She concluded with the idea to look at the little things to find undiscovered ways of orderliness.

            Wiggins, Potter, and Wildsmith’s article is about how families with teenage daughters talk about eating (the actual food, hunger, and restraint from eating too much). They used naturally occurring talk and provided excerpts of one family’s conversations as examples of the patterns they heard. Analysis of each issue (how the family constructs the object, individual, and behavior) was given after the excerpts. I wrote about this article for the DP class this summer. I still find this article to be well written and organized. It is a great empirical example that helps to understand DP/CA.