As part of his Kindergarten homework, Henry had to go on a "pattern hunt." We started the hunt immediately upon pulling up to the curb in front of our house after school. With my phone, I took pictures of patterns he identified in the yard and on the porch.
Henry located numerous patterns of shape, size, and color within the American flag, the picket fence, the decorative lights strung on the porch, the poured-concrete pavers on the ground. Patterns, patterns everywhere!
"Look, Henry!" said his grandmother, who was with us. "Here's one," she said, pointing to a series of concentric circles atop a water meter cover.
Henry frowned, not seeing it. "Granny, that is not a pattern. A pattern is the same and repeats itself," he instructed, before continuing his search.
Well, of course, it was a sort of pattern we were all looking at in the ground. Patterns involve form and/or structure and occur with varying levels of extensiveness and complexity, thus making them "sometimes difficult to recognize" (Wood & Kroger, p. 117). Henry was so well schooled in the textbook definition of "pattern," he could not wrap his five-year-old mind around an interesting departure from the rule.
Well, of course, it was a sort of pattern we were all looking at in the ground. Patterns involve form and/or structure and occur with varying levels of extensiveness and complexity, thus making them "sometimes difficult to recognize" (Wood & Kroger, p. 117). Henry was so well schooled in the textbook definition of "pattern," he could not wrap his five-year-old mind around an interesting departure from the rule.
This is the challenge of the novice researcher/analyst: striking the right balance of unschooled intuition and basic analytical knowledge. It isn't easy intuiting significance from interestingly deviant cases if you don't "know" a little about what you are looking at.
Recognizing "patterns of interactions"
At once, I think novice analysts may have an advantage insofar as "unmotivated looking" because we are not deeply schooled in the DA/CA literature base. And, yet, as ten Have explains his strategy, "...[T]he starting point is some 'noticing' in the transcript that something 'interesting' seems to be happening at some moment. From that moment on, the purpose of the strategy is to elaborate and contextualize that rather intuitive moment" (p. 124).
It is helpful, then, to possess "a few basic concepts from the CA tradition to structure one's 'looking'" (p. 121), and ten Have's four, fundamental "organizations" from the CA knowledgebase seem incredibly helpful to me as I move forward.
Recognizing "patterns of interactions"
At once, I think novice analysts may have an advantage insofar as "unmotivated looking" because we are not deeply schooled in the DA/CA literature base. And, yet, as ten Have explains his strategy, "...[T]he starting point is some 'noticing' in the transcript that something 'interesting' seems to be happening at some moment. From that moment on, the purpose of the strategy is to elaborate and contextualize that rather intuitive moment" (p. 124).
It is helpful, then, to possess "a few basic concepts from the CA tradition to structure one's 'looking'" (p. 121), and ten Have's four, fundamental "organizations" from the CA knowledgebase seem incredibly helpful to me as I move forward.
In a similar vein, Wood & Kroger provide lists of "sensitizing devices," lest we become "loose and undisciplined" during our early explorations of the data (p. 91). They acknowledge that it is difficult to know if an interesting feature hasn't already been described elsewhere by other scholars. This has come up earlier in class discussions: how do we keep up with the vast array of features, concepts, and devices? In this regard, it seems the novice is at a disadvantage if not at least generally familiar with the CA/DA literature. No one wants to reinvent the wheel.
In at least one previous blog post, I have worried about not being able to master the vast array of "concepts and devices" emanating from the traditions of DA. For this reason, I enjoyed their discussion of "useful concepts or sets of ideas" that, in some cases, "transcend any particular tradition" (p. 100). Like ten Have's suggested "organizations," which I think Wood & Kroger lump together as "collected dossiers," the list of concepts in Chapter 8 strike me as something to hang onto as I prepare to embark on my own pattern hunt.
Another go-round with context
Context remains at the center of "lively debate" in DA, this time regarding its role in the analysis and interpretation of data. Where, if at all, does information about settings, circumstances, social roles, demographic variables, and so on work its way in?
Context comes from within and without. Wood and Kroger note the "contextualization of utterances is a procedure that is relied upon by participants themselves and is hearable-visable in the discourse that we are analyzing" (p. 128).
It gets dicey around "extrinsic context" -- how much of setting, institutional orders and participant characteristics, class, gender, race, age, and so on, can we draw on in our analysis? Wood and Kroger recommend a "simple" strategy, which we have heard before in class -- it's only relevant if the participants make it relevant. Otherwise, how do you know where to stop? And heavy doses of researcher reflexivity can help mediate the process of determining what is relevant. Wood and Kroger: "It is crucial to emphasize that the recommendation is not to ignore context, to leave out what is important, but to be very careful about how it is brought into analysis" (p. 129).
Context comes from within and without. Wood and Kroger note the "contextualization of utterances is a procedure that is relied upon by participants themselves and is hearable-visable in the discourse that we are analyzing" (p. 128).
It gets dicey around "extrinsic context" -- how much of setting, institutional orders and participant characteristics, class, gender, race, age, and so on, can we draw on in our analysis? Wood and Kroger recommend a "simple" strategy, which we have heard before in class -- it's only relevant if the participants make it relevant. Otherwise, how do you know where to stop? And heavy doses of researcher reflexivity can help mediate the process of determining what is relevant. Wood and Kroger: "It is crucial to emphasize that the recommendation is not to ignore context, to leave out what is important, but to be very careful about how it is brought into analysis" (p. 129).
This is where I have some questions about the document/text we are to locate for our project. I have looked at one primary document, the School Improvement Plan (SIP), a document every public school must compile and submit to the state each year. I located in the SIP a very small bit about the collaborative teaming that I am currently observing. I have reviewed every relevant page of the school website, but this is understandably geared toward students, parents, and community stakeholders and does not include information about the mission, philosophy, purpose, or background of the collaborative team concept or even site-based management in general. I have also sent out emails to a few team members inquiring about documentation.
But perhaps I should wait and see what kind of paper trail is circulated or produced from within the team when I am there??
Another interesting analytic move related to context that I would like to learn more about is this idea of "extending the boundaries of the interaction under analysis" and developing "ethnographic knowledge" or "shared knowledge" between myself and the participants. Wood and Kroger say, "Sometimes ethnographic research is necessary." This suggests a longer engagement in the field than I had originally planned, and I am starting the process of requesting an extension from the principal and the head of research for the school district.
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Wood, L. A., & Kroger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
You can use documents to provide that larger "ethnographic context" for your study. Even if the document doesn't specifically mention the collaborative teams, it will tell you a LOT about the school, its values and norms, etc. and that will help you better understand the world that is created through the talk of your participants.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the section on context for this week.
Regarding mastering the existing knowledge base of CA findings, that's where you rely on other people and additional reading. When I notice something I will share it with other researchers and ask, "what IS this?" to be sure that it hasn't already been identified or written about. And really it's not all that different from any qualitative research findings - eventually you have to go back to the literature base to see how your findings may or may not align with what others have found. We never want to reinvent the wheel.