For 12/4: Research Possibilities

Two possibilities for studying our 726 class:

1) It would be interesting to compare eye movement during peer workshop sessions, similar to what Eric J. Paulson’s did in his study, in order to get a clearer sense of how the peer review strategies of graduate students differs from that of first-year writers.  My thinking is that the study could compare the eye movements of students in our class with students in a first-year composition class here at BGSU, and my preliminary thinking is that graduate students would be more apt to comment on global issues than local issues than first-year students, although it’s likely that such a study would highlight many differences and similarities in reading and response processes.  The methodology would be similar to that used by Paulson, with all students receiving the same prompt and writing sample.  I would need to foreground my positioning as a graduate student and GSW instructor.  Some limitations would probably have to do with the extent to which this study would actually measure what happens during peer review – particularly when the prompt and writing sample presented are taken out of the usual social context of classroom peer review, when students know the person whose writing is being reviewed.

2) It might be interesting to study graduate student perceptions of different research methods.  Which methods do students feel most likely to use?  Which do they see as being irrelevant to their research interests, and why?  Which are they resistant to, and why?  Do the responses of graduate students to different methods speak to larger trends happening in the field as a whole?  Do they fall in line with the agenda of the instructor?  What other things might we learn?  This study could use participant-observation notes, interviews with graduate students and the instructors, a questionnaire asking students to rank their comfort level or enthusiasm about a particular research method as well as other aspects of the class, etc.

questions for 11/27

 

1)     In “The Embodied Rhetoric of Hallie Quinn Brown,” Susan Kates justifies her study by noting that historical accounts such as the one she provides may help educators “search for new ways to serve a multicultural society” and “help us to generate rhetorical curricula that will respond to the needs of an increasingly diverse student population” (61).  To what extent should historical research be justified by its applicability to present-day theory and practice?

2)     What are some possible benefits and pitfalls of foregrounding emotional attachment to historical research subjects?  Are these similar to or different from issues that might arise from foregrounding emotional attachment to research subjects who are still alive?

3)     In her interview about historical/archival research, Sue Carter Wood writes that the most interesting aspect of this type of research is “finding stories.”  Could this attention to “stories” be considered a feminist approach to historical research?

questions for 11/20

1) Blair and McKee’s article touches on the notion of reciprocity discussed in Cushman’s work last week, though the nature of that reciprocity seems different than what Cushman experienced in her study.  Who determines the nature of the reciprocal relationship between researcher and participant?  Is it something that is “decided” at all, or does it grow organically out of the research site?  How can ethical standards be maintained and assessed when there is so much variety from site to site, and from person to person?

2) Eyman’s interview with McKee and DeVoss illuminates many concerns for scholars of the Internet.  One of the most fascinating questions to me is that of “am I studying persons or texts?” – a question that Rich Rowlands answered to some extent recently when he said that the review board’s position is that MySpace profiles and such are texts, not people.  In what ways is this distinction between text and person problematic?

3) Wysocki’s discussion of multiliteracies and visual literacies on page 604 revisits the contested nature of the term “literacy.”  How can we conduct research about literacy when the term itself remains so contested?  Does the flexibility of the term help us or hinder us as scholars?

questions for 11/13

In response to the Ellen Cushman readings:

1) What kinds of ethical challenges are posed by the kind of research Cushman  advocates?  In addition to the kinds of ethical challenges related to participant/observer research that we’ve already discussed, I could imagine a review board becoming especially befuddled by the “reciprocity” Cushman encourages – writing letters of recommendation, providing occasional transportation, etc.  Furthermore, how can one even go so far as to anticipate what the nature of the reciprocal relationship might be?  Does one have an ethical obligation to notify the review board when those situations occur?

2) Cushman discusses several ways in which she and her research participants identified with one another, especially as related to similarities in social class and economic experiences.  While Cushman still had to work to earn trust and status in this community as an outsider to some extent, it seems that her similar experiences made it easier to avoid the “missionary” complex that can be a major pitfall of activist/service-learning research.  How can those who wish to conduct responsible activist research engage responsibly and sensitively with communities when they may not be able to identify with participants in the same ways that Cushman was able to in her study?  How do we bridge gaps in race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, gender, sexuality, and other points of identification/division, or do we?

3) In “The Rhetorician as an Agent of Social Change,”Cushman offers a rather lengthy footnote on page 8  that serves to ground her article in her personal experiences inside and outside of academia.  Cushman clearly sees research as an inherently political process – a process that can be used to facilitate systemic change.  But is she advocating reformatory change, or more of a radical re-envisioning?  She mentions adopting academic discourse to work within the system, but other aspects of her discussion seem to indicate a desire to move beyond the “system” and seek a radical new kind of intellectual existence.  Is Cushman advocating a radical political agenda?  A reformatory one?  All of the above?  Neither?

Abstract draft

Abstract Draft.  Please Help.

When Time declared “you” its 2006 “Person of the Year,” it was an official recognition by mainstream media of the continued impact of Internet technologies on our culture.  Specifically, the recognition of a collective, abstract, yet seemingly empowered “you” was a nod to a dramatic shift in Internet technologies – namely, the development and widespread popularity of sites revolving around user-created content. This new age of Internet technologies (often referred to as “Web 2.0”) emphasizes peer-to-peer sharing, open-source software, decentralization of authority, and nonhierarchical structures, thereby revolutionizing the way that people access information and communicate with one another. 

Additionally, while the use of the Internet to support political agendas is not a new practice, the recent development and widespread popularity of sites revolving around user-generated content has led to greater conceptualization of the Internet as a public sphere – a site of political and persuasive engagement by offering advantages that may not be available through other forms of media (Warnick, 2007). Proponents claim that this “new” Internet enacts democratic principles by bringing previously marginalized voices into the public arena, by encouraging active participation, and by fostering among citizens a shared responsibility in the knowledge-building and dissemination process.  But as the popularity of these social networking and information-sharing sites continues to grow, major corporations and political figures seek ways to capitalize on and control the public discourse within these highly networked spaces.

The popularity of sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Wikipedia, and YouTube, for example, has forced media giants and large corporations to dialogue with consumers in unprecedented ways, most recently resulting in the integration of high-profile, big-media sponsored political events into Web 2.0 formats. One of the most recent instances of mainstream cultural institutions trying to capitalize on the popularity of these internet technologies is the recent CNN-YouTube debate, which was held July 23, 2007. Eight presidential hopefuls from the Democratic Party took part in the debate, in which candidates fielded video questions submitted by YouTube users, in addition to more traditional questions posed by journalists.  More than 2.6 million viewers tuned in to the debate (Seelye, 2007), and, despite some initial reluctance, some Republican Party candidates have agreed to participate in their own CNN-YouTube debate on November 28, 2007. 

YouTube, in fact, was one of the key websites mentioned in Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” article.  Founded in 2005, the popular video sharing site allows users to upload and view video content for free and has already demonstrated considerable cultural significance, as the Time recognition and aforementioned CNN-partnered debate would suggest. Of equal interest is the way the site has perhaps revolutionized the relationship between advertisers and consumers, as major networks continue to take advantage of the site’s widespread popularity by developing their own YouTube presences.  It’s clear, then, that we will continue to see more politically invested and corporate-sponsored Web events in the future as government agencies, major corporations, and political figures work to gain favor in the minds (and purses) of Internet users.

The cultural significance of sites like YouTube, then, cannot be understated; but what does this mean for higher education? What does this mean for rhetoric and composition studies?  To what extent has Web 2.0 remediated what counts as public argumentation and who is qualified to practice it?  What are the new modes of argumentation in digital spaces, and how should/can we bring those modes of argumentation into our pedagogical practices?  As formal sites of knowledge production, many institutions struggle to reconcile traditional academic values with the open-source spirit of knowledge-sharing that rests at the heart of the Web 2.0 ethos. Additionally, many fear that Web 2.0’s pervasive linking and tendency toward a “viral” spreading of content may have negative consequences for our intellectual future, since the vast interconnectedness of these technologies means that “misinformation never goes away” (Keen, 2007). As for the civic potential of social networking sites, to what extent do issues of access and literacy still exclude populations from this revitalized “public sphere”? 

These are legitimate concerns, and the above questions therefore form the basis of inquiry for this project.  Specifically, this project aims to provide a detailed review of research relevant to conceptualizations of the public sphere, participatory rhetoric, and digital media.  This literature review is designed to set the groundwork for a dissertation project by pointing out areas of similarity and contradiction in current conversations, as well as by illuminating gaps in research and possible areas of focus for the dissertation project.  I will use Barbara Warnick’s recently published Rhetoric Online: Persuasion and Politics on the World Wide Web as a starting point, as it engages the above discussion and also provides a useful works cited list.  I will draw relevant sources from both speech communication and composition studies traditions of rhetoric, and I will also engage sources from such fields as media studies and political science, as appropriate.

Discussion questions for 10/23

1) In “Researching Hybrid Literacies,” Beatrice Smith discusses some challenges to being a participant-observer in virtual work spaces, arguing that researchers are unable to “lurk anonymously” as they might be able to if they were researching gaming areas on the Internet. To some extent, she’s speaking to the ethical obligations of the researcher to identify oneself as a researcher within this virtual workplace environment, especially when certain aspects of the work environment are “off limits” to outsiders.  However,  this made me wonder to what extent those of us who wish to do ethnography in virtual spaces are ethically obligated to identify ourselves as researchers?  Does studying a “play” space as opposed to a “workplace” carry different ethical standards?

(on a related note: some cool ethnographic work being done by a class at Kansas State – and in their introductory video, the instructor makes a point of discussing participant-observer research and introducing the researchers to the YouTube community: http://youtube.com/watch?v=tYcS_VpoWJk).

2) Lauer and Ascher point out some pitfalls of case study and ethnography, one being the danger of first impressions – the order in which the information is received – influencing the researcher’s analysis.  This struck me as an interesting point, especially for those of us interested in studying virtual environments.  Many Internet technologies operate in a non-hierarchical fashion and offer a variety of entry points – and while the non-linearity is appealing to many, there nonetheless seem to be lots of efforts to impose hierarchical constructions to these non-hierarchical spaces.  How can we try to curb some of the impulse to organize data in a linear fashion when researching these spaces?

3) As I read Lauer and Ascher’s discussion of triangulation, I was struck once again by the importance of note taking as a skill, and the importance of being able to shift between different note taking strategies in order to gather multiple sources of data.  While I’ve taken notes during my entire educational career, I can’t think of any moments prior to this research methods class when note taking was approached as an important skill to be practiced and refined by researchers.  It also seems like this would be a beneficial skill for most people to develop in an effort to be better observers and critical thinkers.  Why don’t we give students more opportunities to experiment with different note-taking strategies? Why are these things discussed in graduate-level research methods classes and nowhere else?  How can we incorporate the kinds of strategies we’re talking about into undergraduate classrooms?  Should we?

10/16 discussion questions

Sorry, folks.  Better late than never, I hope.

1) Charney mentions how false perceptions of scientific research may be perpetuated by more mainstream, popular genres that reduce complex scientific research findings to simple, determinate answers and clear, immediate applications (578).  This also seems to be a common problem for scholars who wish to share their scholarship with a much broader audience in order to share useful knowledge with everyone, instead of just those inside of the academy.  Since the average person is not interested in wading through volumes of academic discourse and citations, the research discussion may be revised to fit the needs of a more mainstream audience – which has led to some scholars being criticized for “watering down” their research or abandoning legitimate scholarship for the sake of increased revenue from popular presses.  If we want to engage in  meaningful work as public intellectuals, how do we avoid this criticism – more specifically, how can we preserve the complexity and rhetorocity of our research while also making it accessible to those who may benefit most from our research?

2)  Kirsch and Sullivan claim that “a high reliability rating [...] suppresses the subjective, interpretive nature of coding and endows the systems with the appearance of impartiality” (283, emphasis mine). Is it possible to achieve high reliability ratings while also acknowledging the fact that research is never completely impartial and objective?  Is “reliability” synonymous with “impartiality”?  Is the perceived binary between “reliability” and “subjectivity” a false one?

3) According to Charney, while it may be true that “scientists are not as self-conscious of their methods as they should be,” it is also true that scientific research practices “engage them more deeply in collective knowledge construction than ours do” (591).  Really?  It seems that Charney takes issue with the subjectivity of individual case studies and ethnographies and does not see these as being as “deep” as our research could be.  Why not?  Is reliability and validity the issue here?  And if so, how might Kirsch and Sullivan respond, in light of their challenge to the concept of “reliability”?

discussion questions for 10/9

 

1)     At one point in the “Integrating Multimodality” article, the authors defend their decision to avoid defining terms on their survey.  They argue this lack of clear definition was an effort to gain insight as to how respondents themselves defined those terms. They go on to argue: “Although the authors recognize that a lack of definitions may have caused respondents to be confused about the question (or purpose of the survey), we believe that because our sample was targeted to respondents who were probably familiar with current multimodal/new media theory, we decided to abstain from defining the terms” (5-6).  As researchers, what do we make of this decision to sacrifice some clarity for (possibly) some useful data?

2)     Response rate seems to be a pretty big problem for researchers who rely on surveys and questionnaires – especially when a target population is pretty narrow to begin with. In light of the readings, would you take projected response rate into consideration as you select your target research population?

3)     Surveys are “the only research tool available to obtain certain kinds of information, namely opinions, preferences, beliefs, feelings, and other personal information” (CRED 148).  Unfortunately, a lot of people feel overwhelmed by the sheer number of surveys and questionnaires being delivered by various organizations, through a variety of media (telephone, e-mail, snail mail, etc).  As people continue to get fed up, will we see a steady decline in response rates?  And, how can we, as responsible researchers, continue to gather this valuable information without annoying potential participants?

Discussion Questions for 10/2

1)      Neff argues that “we as compositionists have not studied our research methods as social practices in themselves.  Our methodologies too often remain traditional, patriarchal, and exclusionary” (133).  How does grounded theory help to foster a more “democratic” spirit in the research process?

2)      One thing that seems to be of great importance to grounded theory is showing how a bunch of variables can interact in complex ways.  For this reason, grounded theory seems to be a highly appropriate method for researching human interactions.  What other research situations might it be particularly well-suited for?  For example, would grounded theory be appropriate for textual analyses or other research situations where human interaction is not at the core of the situation, or when the human interaction has perhaps already taken place?

3)      What’s the difference, if any, between grounded theory and ethnography?  Is grounded theory a type of ethnographic research?

Note: this website offers a blissfully easy-to-understand sketch of the grounded theory process: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/grounded.html. 

Observation Activity – Reflection

1) How did you approach the observation activity? I had considered several possible places for this activity, but finally decided on the restaurant because it’s a place that is still somewhat new to me. My thinking was that, as researchers, we often find ourselves in a position to observe situations that we may not be entirely familiar with. I wonder, though, how my observation might change if I were to observe this same space a year from now, after making an effort to frequent the establishment on a regular basis. Would I look at it in a different way? Would certain things become invisible to me, as I became “closer” to the space? Would certain things become apparent to me as an “insider” that might now be as visible to an outside researcher?

2) What did you learn about the site you observed by studying it? I think I felt like I understood what the restaurant was trying to accomplish through its decor and overall aesthetic. But I think the most interesting part of this activity was the way I found myself digging into the “why.” I was seeing, observing, absorbing…but my mind was actively trying to speculate about what kinds of factors contributed to the presence of the material items I was observing. I also found myself asking a lot of questions about the people occupying that space – what they were feeling, why they acted a particular way, etc. While this kind of critical questioning is almost second nature for academics, it occurs to me that I don’t always apply such critical questioning to the everyday places and interactions that shape my life.

3) What did you see as the challenges of observing and representing the site? It was challenging to observe and participate at the same time, as I found it was easy to get distracted – by my food, by conversation, and by other factors that would perhaps not have been an issue if I would have chosen to observe the space from a detached angle, not as a customer, and not with another person present.

4) What did you learn about yourself as the observer/researcher? I’m pretty good at observing, but I get distracted pretty easily and sometimes get sidetracked into speculating about things that may not be particularly relevant. I think I would need to plan more ahead of time as to what kinds of things I would be looking for…and also anticipate that my mind might drift a bit, so maybe I should have carefully structured logbooks or something. At any rate, advanced planning would probably be a good idea.

5) How would you assess your observation skills? And your notetaking skills?I think I’m adequate in both areas, but could probably be better. I suppose that, like anything, these are skills that can only be developed through practice and experimentation. I’d like to be more focused in my observation, and more organized in my note-taking. I hate my handwriting, so I would prefer to type – but I think that laptops can sometimes be distracting depending on the space being observed, so I’ll need to find a good compromise.